Filed: Nov. 17, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-3374-ag Sorongan v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A098 648 600 A098 648 601 A098 648 602 A098 648 603 A098 648 604 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER T
Summary: 09-3374-ag Sorongan v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A098 648 600 A098 648 601 A098 648 602 A098 648 603 A098 648 604 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER TH..
More
09-3374-ag
Sorongan v. Holder
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A098 648 600
A098 648 601
A098 648 602
A098 648 603
A098 648 604
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 17th day of November, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ERNA FLORENCIE SORONGAN, I KETUT
14 BAGIANTA, I WAYAN CENNA WIDHIANTARA,
15 NI MADE CHERYL WIDYANETTA, I NYOMAN
16 CERRENS WIDHIANTA,
17 Petitioners,
18
19 v. 09-3374-ag
20 NAC
21 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
22 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
23 Respondent.
24 _______________________________________
25
26 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, New York,
27 New York.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; David H. Wetmore,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioners, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek
13 review of a July 10, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the
14 July 27, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette
15 S. Elstein, which denied their application for asylum,
16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sorongan, Nos. A098 648
18 600/601/602/603/604 (B.I.A. July 10, 2009), aff’g Nos. A098
19 648 600/601/602/603/604 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 27,
20 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
21 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
22 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
23 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
24 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
25 2008) (internal quotations omitted). The applicable
26 standards of review are well-established. Salimatou Bah v.
2
1 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008); Manzur v. U.S.
2 Dep't of Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 The agency did not err in finding that the harm the
4 lead petitioner, Erna Florencie Sorongan, claimed to have
5 suffered, while unfortunate and offensive, did not rise the
6 level of persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of
7 Justice,
433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). Contrary to
8 Petitioners’ contention, the agency’s analysis did not run
9 afoul of our decision in Manzur, because the agency did not
10 analyze a pattern of harms by isolating each incident and
11 disposing of it on separate grounds. See Manzur,
494 F.3d
12 at 290. Rather, because the agency expressly stated that it
13 considered the claims in the aggregate, and nothing in its
14 decisions suggests that it did not actually do so, the
15 agency did not err in finding that Petitioners did not
16 establish past persecution. See id.; Ivanishvili,
433 F.3d
17 at 341. Moreover, although the agency did not expressly
18 list every incident of harm in Petitioners’ application for
19 relief, because it referenced the most important incidents
20 and indicated that it had considered her entire claim, its
21 analysis was not flawed. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437
22 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the agency need
3
1 not “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual
2 argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner”)
3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
4
