Filed: Apr. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 10-5082-ag Yulianus Jong v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A094 824 764 A094 824 765 A094 824 766 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
Summary: 10-5082-ag Yulianus Jong v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A094 824 764 A094 824 765 A094 824 766 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 ..
More
10-5082-ag
Yulianus Jong v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A094 824 764
A094 824 765
A094 824 766
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 27th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YULIANUS JONG, TINI MONALISA,
14 ANTONIO STANLEY JONG,
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 10-5082-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 FOR PETITIONER: Jack Herzig, Esq. Wyncote,
2 Pennsylvannia.
3
4
5 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
6 General; Leslie McKay, Assistant
7 Director; Christopher Buchanan,
8 Trial Attorney, Office of
9 Immigration Litigation, United
10 States Department of Justice,
11 Washington, D.C.
12
13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
14 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
16 is DENIED.
17 Petitioners Yulianus Jong, Tini Monalisa, and Antonio
18 Stanley Jong, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review
19 of a November 17, 2010 order of the BIA, affirming the
20 November 6, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy
21 K. Hom, which denied their application for asylum,
22 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
23 Against Torture (“CAT”).1 In re Yulianus Jong, Tini
24 Monalisa, Antonio Stanley Jong, Nos. A094 824 764/ 765/ 766
25 (B.I.A. Nov. 17, 2010), aff’g Nos. A094 824 764/ 765/ 766
1
Because Tini Monalisa’s and Antonio Stanley Jong’s
asylum applications are derivative of Yulianus Jong’s
application, we will refer to Yulianus Jong’s (“Jong”)
application in this order.
2
1 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 6, 2008). We assume the parties’
2 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
3 in this case.
4 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
5 both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
6 completeness.” See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
7 Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
8 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
9 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d
10 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
11 The agency did not err in determining that a beating
12 Jong suffered in 1998 at the hands of Indonesian Muslims did
13 not rise to the level of persecution in the absence of any
14 evidence as to severity. See Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632
15 F.3d 820, 821–22 (2d Cir. 2011) (identifying “no error in
16 the BIA's conclusion that [petitioner] failed to establish
17 persecution” when he alleged “minor bruising from an
18 altercation with family planning officials” that left “no
19 lasting physical effect”). Nor did the agency err in
20 determining that the cumulative harm Jong alleged from the
21 1998 beating, a 2004 attack on his parents’ store in which
22 his father was beaten (where Jong was not present), and an
3
1 unfulfilled 2005 bomb threat against his Church, did not
2 rise to the level of past persecution of Jong. See Manzur
3 v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 290 (2d Cir.
4 2007); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
433 F.3d 332,
5 341 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 Jong’s failure to establish past persecution
7 necessarily defeats any claim to a presumption of well-
8 founded fear of future persecution based on the same acts.
9 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1), 1208.16(b)(1)(i).
10 Nor did the agency err in finding that Jong failed to
11 establish a pattern or practice of persecution creating a
12 well-founded fear of future persecution. The record refutes
13 Jong’s claim that the agency failed to consider Jong’s
14 particular circumstances in relying on U.S. Department of
15 State reports on Indonesia to find that there is not a
16 pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese
17 Christians in Indonesia. See Santoso v. Holder,
580 F.3d
18 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (identifying no error in agency
19 determination that there is not a pattern or practice of
20 persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia based
21 on U.S. State Department reports). The agency noted that
22 Jong’s pattern-and-practice claim was inconsistent with
4
1 evidence that his parents and his wife’s parents, all ethnic
2 Chinese Christians, continued to reside in Indonesia without
3 persecution. Further, the agency noted that subsequent to
4 the alleged acts of persecution cited by Jong, the
5 Indonesian government had cracked down on religious
6 violence. Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that
7 the Indonesian government was not unable or unwilling to
8 control anti-Chinese Christian violence, and that such
9 violence did not support a pattern or practice claim.
10 As the agency did not err in concluding that Jong
11 failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear
12 of future persecution if returned to Indonesia, it did not
13 err in denying his application for asylum, withholding of
14 removal, and CAT relief insofar as all three claims shared
15 the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
16 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal); Xue Hong
17 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.
18 2005) (CAT relief).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
23 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
5
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
6
7
6
