Case Name: Janne Johannes MONIUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-20
Citations: 442 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 10-4540-ag
Parties: Janne Johannes MONIUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Janne Johannes MONIUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-4540-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 20, 2011.
Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner, Janne Johannes Moniung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an October 5, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the October 6, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Robert D. Weisel denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Moniung, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 5, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 6, 2009). 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 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).
Because Moniung does not challenge the agency's pretermission of asylum, individualized persecution finding, or denial of CAT relief, we address only the merits of withholding of removal based on a claimed pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).
For withholding of removal based on future harm, applicants can show either that they would likely be singled out for persecution on account of a protected ground or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of a group of similarly situated persons. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142-43 (2d Cir.2008). Moniung argues that the evidence in the record demonstrates that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. To establish a pattern or practice of persecution against a particular group, a petitioner must demonstrate that the harm to that group is "so systemic or pervasive as to amount to a pattern or practice of persecution." In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005); see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir.2007).
The agency reasonably concluded that Moniung failed to establish the existence of a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia, as it relied on country conditions evidence in the record, Moniung's testimony that he knew of only one attack against Christians in Indonesia in the previous two years, the fact that 98 percent of the population in the area in which his family lived were Christians, and Moniung's failure to provide any evidence of harm to Christians in that area. 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).
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).