09 -12 92 -ag

Andrias v. Holder BIA Lam b, IJ A99-607-716 

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

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERA L 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 26 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

______________________________________ 12 13 NINA M. M. ANDRIAS, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 09-1292-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon; Robert Duk-Hwan Kim; 24 Law Offices of Yee Ling Poon, LLC, 25 New York, New York.2 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 2 General; John C. Cunningham, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; Joseph D. Hardy, 4 Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, D.C. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 0 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 1 is DENIED. 1 2 Nina M. M. Andrias, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 1 3 seeks review of a March 5, 2009 order of the BIA affirming 1 4 the January 15, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 1 5 Elizabeth Lamb, which denied Andrias’s application for 1 6 asylum and withholding of removal. In re Nina M. M. Andrias 1 7 No. A099 607 716 (BIA Mar. 5, 2009), aff’g No. A099 607 716 1 8 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 15, 2008). We assume the 1 9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 0 procedural history of this case. 2 1 Because, in its order, the BIA adopted and supplemented 2 2 the IJ’s decision, we review both decisions. See Yan Chen 23 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 4 applicable standards of review are well-settled. See 2 5 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, Corovic v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d3 1 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 2 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 The agency did not err in denying Andrias’s application 4 for asylum and withholding of removal. Andrias does not 5 challenge the agency’s finding that the harm she suffered 6 did not rise to the level of persecution. Nor does she 7 argue that she would be singled out for persecution if 8 returned to Indonesia. Instead, she contends that there 9 exists in Indonesia a pattern or practice of persecution 1 0 against ethnically Chinese and Christian Indonesians. See 1 1 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). However, the BIA has found 1 2 time and again that no such pattern or practice has been 1 3 proven. In re A-— , 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005) 1 4 (citing Lie v. Ashcroft , 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005)). 1 5 This Court has found no error in such decisions. See, e.g., 16 Santoso v. Holder , 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009). 1 7 Although the agency errs if it ignores a pattern or practice 1 8 claim, see Mufied v. Mukasey , 508 F.3d 88, 91-93 (2d Cir. 1 9 2007), it did not do so here, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t 20 of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e 2 1 presume that an IJ has taken into account all of the 2 2 evidence before him, unless the record compellingly suggests4 1 otherwise.”). 2 Because the agency did not err in concluding that 3 Andrias was not eligible for asylum, it did not err in 4 denying her application for withholding of removal. See 5 Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the 8 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot. 9 1 0 FOR THE COURT: 1 1 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 12 13