Case Name: Joyce Susiningsih IBRAHIM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-26
Citations: 371 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 08-5781-ag
Parties: Joyce Susiningsih IBRAHIM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Joyce Susiningsih IBRAHIM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-5781-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 26, 2010.
H. Raymond Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Trish Maskew, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Joyce Susiningsih Ibrahim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an October 30, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the July 30, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Sandy Horn, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Joyce Susiningsih Ibrahim, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 30, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
When the BIA does not expressly "adopt" the IJ's decision, but its brief opinion closely tracks the IJ's reasoning, we may consider 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). We review the agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See, e.g., Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). We review de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).
We find that the record supports the agency's determination that Ibrahim failed to demonstrate that she suffered past persecution or that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Ibrahim argues that, viewed cumulatively, the incidents of mistreatment she endured rise to the level of persecution. Despite this argument, we cannot find that the agency erred in reaching the opposite conclusion. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006). Absent a showing of past persecution, Ibrahim was not entitled to any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). Moreover, the agency's analysis of her pattern or practice claim was proper. See Matter of A-M-23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005); Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir.2007). The agency also properly concluded that Ibrahim failed to demonstrate that it would be unreasonable for her to relocate to another part of Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Because Ibrahim was unable to show the well-founded fear of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, she was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on her claim for withholding of removal where such claim rested on the same factual predicate. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(1)(A); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Wu Biao Chen v. INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir. 2003).
Finally, because Ibrahim failed to challenge the agency's denial of her CAT claim in her brief to this Court, we deem any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
. In Mufied, we granted the petition for review where the BIA failed to consider the petitioner's pattern or practice claim. 508 F.3d at 93. Here, by contrast, the agency considered Ibrahim's claim and properly rejected it.