Case Name: Winoto SISWOYO, 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: 2011-09-28
Citations: 442 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 10-1127-ag
Parties: Winoto SISWOYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Winoto SISWOYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-1127-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 28, 2011.
Ronald S. Salomon, New York, NY, for petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Winoto Siswoyo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a February 26, 2010, decision of the BIA reaffirming, on remand, the September 20, 2005, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Barbara A. Nelson denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Winoto Siswoyo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 20, 2005). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the BIA's decision alone. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 622-23 (2d Cir.2007). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 115-16 (2d Cir.2008).
As an initial matter, we do not consider the agency's denial of CAT relief because our prior decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Siswoyo's unexhausted challenge to the denial of that form of relief remains the law of the case. See Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir.2009). Therefore, the only issue before us is Sis-woyo's challenge to the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on the finding that he failed to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia.
In order to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant need not "provide evidence that there is a reasonable possibility he or she would be singled out individually for persecution if . [t]he applicant establishes that there is a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality . of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i). The BIA has found time and again that there is no such pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia, see, e.g., Matter of A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005), and we have found no error in those decisions, see, e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.2009). Likewise, in this case, the BIA did not err in determining that Siswoyo failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia. Indeed, the BIA reasonably found that although Chinese Christians face incidents of harm, particularly by non-state actors, and although government forces at times have tolerated such illegal actions, the record did not establish that there is systematic persecution of that group. See Santoso, 580 F.3d at 112; see also Matter of A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 741-42.
Because the BIA reasonably determined that Siswoyo failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia, it did not err in denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i); see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).
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).