Filed: Jan. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 11-1799-ag Gunawan v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A089 254 179 A089 254 180 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 DATABAS
Summary: 11-1799-ag Gunawan v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A089 254 179 A089 254 180 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..
More
11-1799-ag
Gunawan v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A089 254 179
A089 254 180
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 12th day of January, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 RE INA GUNAWAN, IRSAN SUTANTO,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 11-1799-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Alison M. Igoe, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; John M. McAdams,
29 Jr., Civil Division, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Petitioners’
4 petition for review is DENIED.
5 Re Ina Gunawan and Irsan Sutanto, natives and citizens
6 of Indonesia, seek review of an April 8, 2011, decision of
7 the BIA affirming the February 2, 2009, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, denying their
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Re Ina
11 Gunawan and Irsan Sutanto, No. A089 254 179/180 (B.I.A. Apr.
12 8, 2011), aff’g No. A089 254 179/180 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
13 Feb. 2, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions for the sake of
17 completeness. Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
18 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Shu Wen Sun v.
20 BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Petitioners have not argued in their brief that the
22 agency erred in finding their asylum application untimely,
23 or in denying their application for CAT relief. Further,
2
1 petitioners failed to raise their argument that they belong
2 to a disfavored group before the agency, and we decline to
3 consider the unexhausted claim. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d
4 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004).
5 We find that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
6 finding that petitioners did not establish past persecution.
7 The incidents complained of – including robberies and
8 thefts, a groping incident at a shopping mall, Gunawan
9 fleeing from rioters who were near her mother’s store, and
10 petitioners having been near a church when it was bombed –
11 did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ivanishvili
12 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir. 2006)
13 (holding that harm must be sufficiently severe, rising above
14 mere harassment, to constitute persecution).
15 We further find that the BIA properly determined that
16 petitioners did not establish a pattern or practice of
17 persecution of Chinese Christians, and thus did not
18 establish that it was more likely than not that they would
19 be persecuted if returned to Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R.
20 § 208.16(b)(1); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178
21 (2d Cir. 2004). The agency reviewed the evidence, including
22 United States State Department Country Reports, and
3
1 determined that instances of violence against Chinese
2 Christians in Indonesia have decreased, the Indonesian
3 government recognizes Christianity, and Chinese Christians
4 play a significant role in the economy. See Santoso v.
5 Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009). Petitioners’
6 argument that Santoso is distinguishable, and that this case
7 is analogous to Mufied v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.
8 2007), is without merit. The agency reviewed the evidence
9 and correctly applied the “pattern or practice” standard to
10 their claim. See
Santoso, 580 F.3d at 112; cf. Mufied,
508
11 F.3d at 92-93 (remanding to the BIA where the agency failed
12 to address petitioner’s pattern or practice claim).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
4
