10-2514-ag

Lie v. Holder

BIA

Abrams, IJ

A098 365 367

A098 365 368

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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New

York, on the 11th day of July, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

 Circuit Judges.

______________________________________

AY LY LIE, ANITA C. JAYA, AKA ANITA

CAROLLINA JAYA,

Petitioners, 

 v. 10-2514-ag

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

______________________________________

FOR PETITIONERS: Jack Herzig, Glenside, Pennsylvania.

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Asst. Atty. General; Carl H.

McIntyre, Jr., Asst. Director; Kate D.

Balaban, Trial Atty., Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
-2-

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is

DENIED.

Petitioners, Ay Ly Lie and Anita C. Jaya, mother and

daughter and natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of

a May 28, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the May 15,

2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In

re Lie, Nos. A098 365 367/368 (B.I.A. May 28, 2010), aff’g

Nos. A098 365 367/368 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 15, 2008). We

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.

2008). The applicable standards of review are wellestablished. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin

Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Because Lie and Jaya do not challenge the agency’s

pretermission of Lie’s asylum application, the ruling that

past persecution was not shown, or the denial of CAT relief,

we address only the merits of Lie’s petition as it pertains to
-3-

withholding of removal and Jaya’s petition as it pertains to

asylum and withholding of removal based on a claimed pattern

or practice of persecution against Christian and ethnic

Chinese Indonesians. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d

540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). In addition, because

the BIA determined that, even assuming credibility, Lie and

Jaya did not establish their eligibility for relief, we also

assume credibility. See Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64,

68 (2d Cir. 2011).

The agency reasonably concluded that Lie and Jaya failed

to establish the existence of a pattern or practice of

persecution against Christians and ethnic Chinese in

Indonesia, as it relied on country conditions evidence in the

record to find that, while there continues to be

discrimination against Chinese Christians, the record did not

establish a pattern or practice of persecution. See Santoso

v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding agency

conclusion of no pattern or practice of persecution in case

involving similar country conditions evidence). While Lie and

Jaya argue that the agency did not consider all of the country

conditions evidence presented, the record does not

compellingly suggest that the agency failed to consider any

evidence, particularly as the IJ specifically listed the

evidence in the record and made repeated reference to the
-4-

affidavit of the main expert witness. See Xiao Ji Chen v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006).

In addition, the agency did not err in finding that the

fact that Jaya remained in Indonesia and continued to attend

church for over two and one half years after the last incident

of threats reduced the objective reasonableness of Lie’s and

Jaya’s fear of future harm. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191

F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that where asylum

applicant’s mother and daughters continued to live in

petitioner’s native country, claim of well-founded fear was

diminished).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

34.1(b).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk