Filed: Nov. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 12-2608 Muliana v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A094 778 256 A094 778 257 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 DAT
Summary: 12-2608 Muliana v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A094 778 256 A094 778 257 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 DATA..
More
12-2608
Muliana v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A094 778 256
A094 778 257
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 12th day of November, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 DEWI SARI MULIANA, TONI EFFENDI,
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 12-2608
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey Lubin, Flushing, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph A.
29 O’Connell, Attorney, 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 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioners Dewi Sari Muliana and Toni Effendi, natives
6 and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of a June 6, 2012,
7 order of the BIA, affirming the April 8, 2010, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier E. Balasquide, denying their
9 applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dewi
11 Sari Muliana, No. A094 778 256, Toni Effendi, No. A094 778
12 257 (B.I.A. June 6, 2012), aff’g Nos. A094 778 256/257
13 (Immig. Ct. New York City Apr. 8, 2010). We assume the
14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history in this case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
17 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
18 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
19 2008). The applicable standards of review are
20 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
21 v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
22 First, there is no evidence in the record compelling
23 the conclusion that, contrary to the agency’s determination,
2
1 the mistreatment that Muliana experienced in Indonesia rose
2 to the level of past persecution on account of her Chinese
3 ethnicity and Catholic religion. See Mei Fun Wong v.
4 Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011). Both the BIA and IJ
5 properly considered the incidents Muliana described, which
6 included unwanted touching by Indonesian boys when she was a
7 teenager; the looting and burning of her father’s store
8 during riots in Jakarta in 1998; being robbed in a taxi;
9 being near the scene of a bombing that may have been the
10 work of Indonesian Muslims; and an incident in which Muslims
11 threatened her and her husband and threw rocks at their car.
12 The agency did not err in considering that Muliana was not
13 physically harmed in any of these incidents and in finding
14 that while she suffered harassment and discrimination,
15 cumulatively, her experiences did not rise to the level of
16 persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433
17 F.3d 332, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of
18 Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 293 (2d Cir. 2007).
19 While Muliana correctly notes that physical injury is
20 not a prerequisite to a finding of past persecution, before
21 the IJ she presented no evidence of lasting or serious
22 physical, psychological, or economic harm that would compel
3
1 reversal of the agency’s findings.1 See 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1158(b)(1)(B) (the asylum applicant bears the burden of
3 proof to establish eligibility for relief).
4 Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
5 finding that Muliana failed to demonstrate a well-founded
6 fear of future persecution. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
7 357 F.3d 169, 177-78 (2d Cir. 2004). Muliana argues that
8 the agency erred in concluding that her fear was not
9 objectively reasonable merely because conditions in
10 Indonesia for Christians have improved; however, the
11 agency’s finding did not rest on this basis, as the BIA also
12 found that the government was taking steps to protect
13 religious minorities, and that vague reports of incidents of
14 mob violence in the record were insufficient to demonstrate
15 country-wide persecution of Chinese Christians. See Santoso
16 v. Holder,
580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009). Muliana also
17 fails to challenge the agency’s finding that the
18 reasonableness of her fear was undermined by a lack of
19 evidence that her parents and sister, who remain in
20 Indonesia, have suffered any harm on account of their race
1
We note that we may not consider the extra-record
evidence Muliana attaches to her brief. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A).
4
1 or religion since her departure in 2006. See Melgar de
2 Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999). Lastly,
3 while Muliana briefly references the agency’s denial of
4 withholding of removal and protection under the CAT in her
5 brief, she raises no meaningful challenge to the agency’s
6 denial of these forms of relief.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
