09-1112-ag

Johanes v. Holder

BIA

Elstein, IJ

A098 550 482

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1

AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A

LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:

“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER

TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED

BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE

ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE

DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

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 23 day of December, two thousand nine. rd

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _______________________________________

12

13 LINTJE JOHANES, A.K.A. LINTJE JOHANNES,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 09-1112-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New

24 York.
2

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

2 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior

3 Litigation Counsel, Zoe J. Heller,

4 Trial Attorney, Office of

5 Immigration Litigation, United

6 States Department of Justice,

7 Washington, 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 Lintje Johanes, a native and citizen of Indonesia,

14 seeks review of a February 19, 2009 order of the BIA,

15 affirming the September 10, 2007 decision of Immigration

16 Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, which denied her

17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lintje

19 Johanes, No. A098 550 482 (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2009), aff’g No.

20 A098 550 482 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2007). We

21 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

22 and procedural history in this case.

23 We review the agency’s factual findings under the

24 substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. §

25 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95

26 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and the
Johanes concedes that we are without jurisdiction to 1

consider the agency’s pretermission of her untimely

asylum application.

3

1 application of law to undisputed fact. Salimatou Bah v.

2 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 

3 We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that

4 Johanes failed to meet her burden of proof on her

5 application for withholding of removal. This Court has 1

6 consistently declined to disturb the agency’s finding that

7 there is no pattern or practice of persecution against

8 Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Santoso v. Holder, 580

9 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing In re A-M-, 23 I&N Dec. 737

10 (BIA 2005)). Moreover, the record in this case includes

11 reports by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

12 Resource Information Center and the Department of State

13 indicating that discrimination against ethnic Chinese in

14 Indonesia has greatly declined, and that many laws

15 discriminating against ethnic Chinese have been repealed. 

16 Finally, the Board reasonably noted that Johanes’s actions

17 in remaining in Indonesia for a substantial amount of time

18 after she claims she was harmed and returning to the country

19 after arriving in the United States in 2006 undermine her

20 claim, as does the fact that her children and husband
We reject Johanes’s request that we adopt the Ninth 2

Circuit’s “disfavored group” analysis. See Sael v.

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2004)

4

1 continue to live safely in the country. See Wensheng Yan 2

2 ; v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 68 n.2 (2d Cir. 2007) Lie v.

3 Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005); see also In re A-E-M4 , 21 I. & N. Dec. 1157, 1160 (BIA 1998).

5 Because Johanes failed to meaningfully argue her

6 eligibility for CAT relief before either the agency or this

7 Court, we deem such claim for relief abandoned. See Gui Yin

8 Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007).

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

16 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

19

20

21 By:___________________________

22