Filed: Aug. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-2172-ag Windrawaty v. Holder BIA McManus, IJ A099 605 214 A099 605 215 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
Summary: 11-2172-ag Windrawaty v. Holder BIA McManus, IJ A099 605 214 A099 605 215 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 D..
More
11-2172-ag
Windrawaty v. Holder
BIA
McManus, IJ
A099 605 214
A099 605 215
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 15th day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 ERNY WINDRAWATY,
14 BAMBANG SURYONO BAKTIA INPUTRA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-2172-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
25 York.
26
27
28
29
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Jennifer A.
4 Singer, Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation; U.S.
6 Department of Justice, Washington,
7 D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Erny Windrawaty and Bambang Suryono Baktia Inputra,
14 natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of an April
15 29, 2011 decision of the BIA affirming the May 21, 2009
16 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied their
17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Erny
19 Windrawaty, Bambang Suryono Baktia Inputra, Nos. A099 605
20 214/215 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2011), aff’g No. A099 605 214/215
21 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 21, 2009). We assume the parties’
22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
23 in this case.
24 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
25 “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
26 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s findings of
2
1 fact under the substantial evidence standard, “treating them
2 as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
3 compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Corovic v.
4 Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1252(b)(4)(B)). “We review de novo questions of law and
6 the application of law to undisputed fact.” Bah v. Mukasey,
7
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
8 Petitioners challenge only the agency’s denial of
9 withholding of removal based on their claim of a pattern or
10 practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in
11 Indonesia. We conclude that the agency reasonably
12 determined that Petitioners did not sustain their burden of
13 demonstrating their eligibility for this form of relief.
14 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
15 Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, the BIA did not rely
16 exclusively on this Court’s decision in Santoso v. Holder,
17
580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009), to find that they failed to
18 show a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese
19 Christians in Indonesia. Indeed, a review of the record
20 indicates that, in finding that Petitioners failed to
21 demonstrate systemic and pervasive persecution, the BIA
22 referenced not only Santoso v. Holder, but also the country
3
1 conditions evidence in the record and the portion of the
2 IJ’s decision in which the IJ found that Windrawaty’s
3 testimony–that Indonesian police officers determined that
4 she was at fault for colliding with a Muslim motorcyclist
5 and ordered her to pay a fine–“standing alone,” did not
6 establish a pattern or practice of persecution. See Xiao Ji
7 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d
8 Cir. 2006) (presuming that the agency “has taken into
9 account all of the evidence before [it], unless the record
10 compellingly suggests otherwise”).
11 Moreover, the agency reasonably found that Petitioners
12 failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of
13 ethnic Chinese or Christians in Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R.
14 § 1208.16(b)(2). The agency here considered the evidence of
15 conditions in Indonesia and reasonably found that the
16 evidence in the record, which included several U.S.
17 Department of State reports, indicated that the Indonesian
18 government generally respected religious freedom, and had
19 instituted reforms intended to promote religious and
20 cultural tolerance. Furthermore, contrary to Petitioners’
21 contention, the newspaper articles relied on in their brief
22 do not evidence a rise in the level of persecution of
4
1 Chinese Christians in Indonesia; they merely describe
2 indiscriminate terrorist attacks in Bali and other parts of
3 Indonesia. Thus, in light of the record evidence, the
4 agency reasonably found that Petitioners failed to
5 demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution against
6 Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §
7 1208.16(b)(2).
8 Finally, we decline Petitioners’ invitation to remand
9 this case to the agency for a more precise statement of its
10 pattern or practice standard. While we have encouraged the
11 agency to elaborate upon the standard it applies in
12 analyzing such claims, see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88,
13 92-93 (2d Cir. 2007), where, as here, “the [agency]
14 explicitly discussed the pattern or practice claim and the
15 record includes substantial documentary evidence regarding
16 the conditions in [Petitioners’] homeland, we are able to
17 reach the conclusion that the agency’s decision was not
18 erroneous,” Santoso, 580 F.3d at 111 n.1.
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED.
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
5
