09 -11 12 -ag

Johan es v . Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A098 550 482 

### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RULIN G S B Y 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 BRI E F O R O T H E R P A PER 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 APPENDI X 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 A N E L E C T R O N IC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHO UT 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 1 0 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 2 is DENIED. 1 3 Lintje Johanes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 1 4 seeks review of a February 19, 2009 order of the BIA, 1 5 affirming the September 10, 2007 decision of Immigration 1 6 Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, which denied her 1 7 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 1 8 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lintje 19 Johanes , No. A098 550 482 (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2009), aff’gNo. 2 0 A098 550 482 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2007). We 2 1 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 2 2 and procedural history in this case. 2 3 We review the agency’s factual findings under the 2 4 substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 2 5 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 95 2 6 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and theJohanes 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 (BIA 2005)). 1 0 Moreover, the record in this case includes 1 1 reports by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Resource Information Center 1 2 and the Department of State 1 3 indicating that discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia has 1 4 greatly declined, and that many laws 1 5 discriminating against ethnic Chinese have been repealed. 1 6 Finally, the Board reasonably noted that Johanes’s actions 1 7 in remaining in Indonesia for a substantial amount of time 1 8 after she claims she was harmed and returning to the country after arriving in the United States in 2006 1 9 undermine her 2 0 claim, as does the fact that her children and husbandWe 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 v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 68 n.2 (2d Cir. 2007) 2 ; Lie v. Ashcroft , 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005) 3 ; see also In re A-E-M, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1157, 1160 (BIA 1998). 4 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 Liu v. INS , 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 1 0 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 6 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 1 7 FOR THE COURT: 1 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19 20 By:___________________________ 21 22