Filed: Oct. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4432-ag Ngo v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A090 347 358 A090 347 359 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 (
Summary: 09-4432-ag Ngo v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A090 347 358 A090 347 359 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 (W..
More
09-4432-ag
Ngo v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A090 347 358
A090 347 359
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 19th day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LILY AMELIA NGO, LUKAS EVEN,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 09-4432-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Aaron Shapiro, The Shapiro Law Firm,
24 New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General, Civil Division; Greg D.
28 Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel;
1 Genevieve Holm, Trial Attorney,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 Civil Division, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 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 The Petitioners, Lily Amelia Ngo and Lukas Even,
12 natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of a
13 September 29, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the January
14 18, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T.
15 Chew denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). In re Ngo, Nos. A090 347 358/359 (B.I.A. Sept. 29,
18 2009), aff’g Nos. A090 347 358/359 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
19 Jan. 18, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
22 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
23 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We
24 uphold administrative factual findings unless any reasonable
25 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
2
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
2 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 The Petitioners do not challenge the IJ’s determination
4 that the harm they suffered based on their Chinese ethnicity
5 and Christian religion constituted mere harassment. See
6 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d
7 Cir. 2006). Instead, they assert that the IJ failed to
8 consider the aggregate effect of that harm. However, there
9 is no indication that the IJ failed to consider the
10 cumulative effect of the Petitioners’ alleged harm. Cf.
11 Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 290 (2d
12 Cir. 2007); Poradisova v. Gonzales,
420 F.3d 70, 79-80 (2d
13 Cir. 2005).* We therefore find no error in the IJ’s
14 determination that the Petitioners failed to establish past
15 persecution.
16 In the absence of past persecution, an alien can
17 demonstrate eligibility for relief if he can show that he
18 has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of
19 a protected ground. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d
*
To the extent petitioner now identifies her psychological
harm as “enochlophobia,” our review is limited to those issues
exhausted before the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Zhong v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). In any
event, we are not persuaded that the IJ failed to consider the
harm now so labeled.
3
1 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(I). Here,
2 substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
3 the Petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
4 future persecution on account of their Chinese ethnicity and
5 Christian beliefs. In support of that conclusion, the IJ
6 reasonably noted that: (1) the Petitioners did not establish
7 past persecution; (2) Indonesia was experiencing a “golden
8 age for Chinese Christians”; and (3) conditions for Chinese
9 Christians in Indonesia had “improved significantly since
10 1998 during the riots.” See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d
11 110, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2009). The Petitioners do not address,
12 much less challenge the IJ’s country condition findings.
13 Instead, they merely reiterate the incidents of harm they
14 referred to in arguing that they suffered past persecution,
15 asserting that these same incidents show that they have a
16 well-founded fear. In light of the IJ’s findings as to past
17 persecution, the agency reasonably found that the
18 petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of
19 future persecution.
20 Because the Petitioners were unable to meet their
21 burden for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the
22 higher burden required for withholding of removal. See Paul
4
1 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
5
