Filed: Jan. 06, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-315-ag Linda v. Holder BIA Straus, IJ A094 496 188 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 N
Summary: 10-315-ag Linda v. Holder BIA Straus, IJ A094 496 188 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 NO..
More
10-315-ag
Linda v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A094 496 188
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 6 th day of January, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
LILI LINDA,
Petitioner,
v. 10-315-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Madeo & Fasano,
New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
Assistant Director; Yanal Yousef,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation; U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Lili Linda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks
review of a December 29, 2009 decision of the BIA affirming
the March 31, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
Michael W. Straus, which denied Linda’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lili Linda, No.
A094 496 188 (BIA Dec. 29, 2009), aff’g No. A094 496 188
(Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 31, 2008). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2008)(internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable
standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B); see also Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d
2
Cir. 2008); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.
2008).
As an initial matter, Linda waives any challenge to the
agency’s determination that she failed to demonstrate past
persecution or her eligibility for withholding of removal or
CAT relief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, the sole issue
is whether Linda demonstrated a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on her claim that there exists in
Indonesia a pattern and practice of persecution of Chinese
Christians.
Contrary to Linda’s argument, there is no indication
that the BIA ignored any material evidence that she
submitted. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
(2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that the Court has rejected the
notion that the agency must “expressly parse or refute on
the record each individual argument or piece of evidence
offered by the petitioner” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (presuming that the
agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before
[it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”).
3
In fact, in affirming the IJ’s decision, the BIA agreed with
the IJ’s extensive evaluation of the evidence and conclusion
that Linda failed to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. Moreover, the agency reasonably found that,
although there is some discrimination against ethnic Chinese
in Indonesia, such discrimination appears to be declining
and is not sufficient to support Linda’s claim of a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of her ethnicity.
See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009)
(holding that the evidence supported a determination that
there was no pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic
Chinese in Indonesia). The agency also reasonably
acknowledged that incidents of violence between Muslims and
Christians in Indonesia continue, but that such violence did
not occur countrywide and that a large percentage of the
population is Christian. See
id. Thus, the agency did not
err in concluding that Linda had failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See id.; see also Jian
Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 171 (recognizing that this Court does
not “attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task
largely within the discretion of the agency”).
Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s denial of
4
Linda’s application for asylum insofar as it was based on
her claim of a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
