Filed: Jun. 10, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-2942-ag Johannes v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A095 838 216 A095 838 217 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 DAT
Summary: 10-2942-ag Johannes v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A095 838 216 A095 838 217 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 DATA..
More
10-2942-ag
Johannes v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A095 838 216
A095 838 217
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 10th day of June, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 TJHIA JOHANNES, ELSYE A.J. YULIANSYE
14 LOLOWANG,
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 10-2942-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Michelle G. Latour,
1 Assistant Director; Nairi S.
2 Gruzenski, Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioners Tjhia Johannes and Elsye A.J. Yuliansye
12 Lolowang, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of
13 a June 21, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the August 4,
14 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Ferris,
15 denying their application for asylum, withholding of
16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). In re Tjhia Johannes, Elsye A.J. Yuliansye
18 Lolowang Nos. A095 838 216/217 (B.I.A. June 21, 2010), aff’g
19 Nos. A095 838 216/217 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2008).
20 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
21 and procedural history in this case.
22 Where, as here, the BIA does not adopt the IJ’s opinion
23 but its decision comment favorably on the IJ’s reasoning, we
24 review “both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions ‘for the sake
25 of completeness.’” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
2
1 Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
2 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2008). The
3 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
4 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513
5 (2d Cir. 2009).
6 Because Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s ruling
7 as to past persecution or the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, we
8 address only the agency’s determination that Petitioners
9 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
10 persecution. See Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1,
11 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Petitioners’ challenge to the well-
12 founded fear determination is meritless.
13 The agency examined the evidence Petitioners submitted
14 and reasonably found that they failed to demonstrate a
15 pattern or practice of persecution against Christians or
16 ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(2),
17 208.16(b)(2); see also Mufied v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 88, 91
18 (2d Cir. 2007). As the BIA found, the State Department’s
19 2007 International Religious Freedom Report on Indonesia
20 reported that the Indonesian government successfully tried
21 and convicted 27 suspects of terrorism, who were involved in
22 violence against members of other religious groups. The
3
1 agency also reasonably considered Petitioners’ fear of
2 persecution to be diminished because members of their
3 family, who are practicing Christians or Catholics, continue
4 to live in Indonesia without harm. See Melgar de Torres v.
5 Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that where
6 asylum applicant’s mother and daughters continued to live in
7 petitioner’s native country, claim of well-founded fear was
8 diminished). Moreover, the agency sufficiently considered
9 all the evidence Petitioners submitted and adequately
10 explained its findings, as, in its decision, the BIA
11 explicitly relied on and discussed the evidence in the
12 record, including the State Department’s 2006 Country Report
13 on Human Rights Practices in Indonesia, which provided that
14 the Indonesian government has attempted to improve
15 conditions for Chinese and Christian communities, and, in
16 addition, noted that it had previously considered similar
17 evidence of country conditions. See Shao v. Mukasey, 546
18 F.3d 138, 159 (2d Cir. 2008) (rejecting the notion that the
19 agency must “expressly parse or refute on the record each
20 individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the
21 petitioner” (quoting Zhi Yun Gao v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 86, 87
22 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks
4
1 omitted); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d
2 315, 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (presuming that the agency “has
3 taken into account all of the evidence before [it], unless
4 the record compellingly suggests otherwise”). Moreover, the
5 evidence to which Petitioners point to in their brief does
6 not contradict the country conditions evidence or support
7 their claim. Because the agency considered all of the
8 evidence and adequately explained its findings, it did not
9 violate Petitioners’ right to due process, as Petitioners
10 had “a full and fair opportunity to present [their] claims.”
11 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
434 F.3d 144, 155 (2d
12 Cir. 2006), reh’g granted, vacated on other grounds by Xiao
13 Ji Chen,
471 F.3d 315.
14 Accordingly, because the agency’s determination that
15 Petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of
16 future persecution is supported by substantial evidence, the
17 agency did not err in denying asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); accord Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
19 Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007). Because Petitioners
20 were unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution
21 needed to make out an asylum claim, they were necessarily
22 unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a
23 claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
24 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2006).
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
6
