Filed: Feb. 24, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-668-ag Sunherland v. Holder BIA Laforest, IJ A097 700 830 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 (WIT
Summary: 10-668-ag Sunherland v. Holder BIA Laforest, IJ A097 700 830 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..
More
10-668-ag
Sunherland v. Holder
BIA
Laforest, IJ
A097 700 830
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 24th day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 HOPELY SUNHERLAND,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-668-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Madeo & Fasano,
24 New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Paul F. Stone,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Hopely Sunherland, a native and citizen of
6 Indonesia, seeks review of a January 29, 2010, decision of
7 the BIA, affirming the March 5, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hopely
11 Sunherland, No. A097 700 830 (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2010), aff’g
12 No. A097 700 830 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5, 2008). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions for the sake of
17 completeness. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
18 Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 The agency reasonably found that Sunherland, who does
22 not claim to have suffered past persecution, failed to
2
1 establish that he would be singled out for persecution based
2 on his Seventh Day Adventist religion if he returned to
3 Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(2), 208.16(b)(2); see
4 also Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir. 2007).
5 Sunherland based his claim on an incident in which he
6 witnessed two individuals ask for the pastor of a church he
7 was attending and state that they did not want services to
8 continue. Sunherland testified that he was not threatened
9 or mistreated during this event, or at any other time, and
10 that the police began guarding his church in 2000 and
11 continued to do so at the time of his hearing in 2008. As
12 Sunherland’s testimony and evidence did not indicate that he
13 would be singled out for persecution, the agency did not err
14 in finding that he failed to demonstrate an objectively
15 reasonable fear of persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
16
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
17 Furthermore, the agency examined the evidence
18 Sunherland submitted and reasonably found that he failed to
19 establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Seventh
20 Day Adventists similarly situated to him. See Mufied,
508
21 F.3d at 91; see also Santoso v. Holder,
580 F.3d 110, 112
22 (2d Cir. 2009). As the BIA found, the State Department’s
3
1 2007 International Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia
2 did not indicate any suppression of Seventh Day Adventists
3 and stated that the Indonesian government generally respects
4 freedom of religion. The agency also reasonably considered
5 Sunderland’s fear of persecution to be diminished because
6 his parents and siblings, who are also practicing Seventh
7 Day Adventists, continue to live in Indonesia without
8 incurring any harassment or mistreatment. See Melgar de
9 Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999).
10 Furthermore, the agency sufficiently considered all of
11 the evidence Sunherland submitted and adequately explained
12 its findings, as, in its decision, the BIA explicitly relied
13 on and discussed the evidence in the record, including the
14 2007 State Department Report. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
15
437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 Lastly, Sunherland asserts that the agency erred by not
17 discussing each of the Matter of Mogharrabi elements when it
18 found that he failed to establish his eligibility for
19 asylum. See 19 I. & N. Dec. 439, 445 (BIA 1987). However,
20 although the agency did not discuss Mogharrabi, it found
21 that Sunherland failed to meet the first of the four
22 Mogharrabi elements: that he possessed a belief that a
4
1 persecutor sought to overcome by means of punishment. See
2 id.
3 Accordingly, because the agency’s determination that
4 Sunherland failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
5 persecution is supported by substantial evidence, see
6 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of
7 Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007), the agency
8 did not err in denying his asylum application. Because
9 Sunherland was unable to show the objective likelihood of
10 persecution needed to make out an asylum claim based on his
11 Seventh Day Adventist beliefs, he was necessarily unable to
12 meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for
13 withholding of removal because both claims rested on the
14 same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148,
15 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Sunherland does not raise any challenge
16 to the agency’s denial of his CAT claim.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
6
