Hidayat v. Garland ( 2022 )

19-1583
Hidayat v. Garland
BIA
Donnolo, IJ
A200 752 635
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of February, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 Present:
7 Debra Ann Livingston,
8 Chief Judge,
9 Susan L. Carney,
10 Richard J. Sullivan,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 BUDI HIDAYAT,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-1583
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo &
25 Fasano, LLP, New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Jessica E. Burns, Senior
1 Litigation Counsel; Rosanne M.
2 Perry, Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, Civil
4 Division, United States Department
5 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Budi Hidayat, a native and citizen of
12 Indonesia, seeks review of a May 1, 2019 decision of the BIA
13 dismissing his appeal of a December 15, 2017 decision of an
14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
15 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
16 (“CAT”). In re Budi Hidayat, No. A200 752 635 (B.I.A. May
17 1, 2019), appeal dismissed, No. A200 752 635 (Immigr. Ct.
18 N.Y.C. Dec. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity
19 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
22 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
23 applicable standards of review are well established. See
24 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
25 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The only issue before us is whether
2
1 Hidayat established a well-founded fear of future persecution
2 on account of his Chinese ethnicity and status as a Buddhist
3 monk, as Hidayat challenges only the BIA’s consideration of
4 the evidence he provided to demonstrate increasing anti-
5 Chinese and anti-Buddhist sentiment in Indonesia. See
6 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d
7 Cir. 2005) (deeming abandoned claims not raised or given
8 conclusory attention in petitioner’s brief).
9 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
10 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
11 of future persecution, “which requires that the alien present
12 credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution and
13 establish that his fear is objectively reasonable.”
14 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004);
15 see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To demonstrate an objectively
16 reasonable fear, an applicant must show either that he would
17 be “singled out individually for persecution” or that the
18 country of removal has a “pattern or practice” of
19 persecuting “similarly situated” individuals. 8 C.F.R.
20 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
21 The agency did not err in finding that Hidayat failed to
22 establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The evidence
3
1 discusses violence and discrimination against ethnically
2 Chinese Indonesians from the 1960s through the 1990s, but the
3 evidence of current conditions largely cites fears of rising
4 anti-Chinese tensions, not widespread violence. Further, the
5 evidence describes instances of Buddhist temples and
6 monasteries being bombed or burned without serious injuries
7 reported, but the reports do not indicate that Buddhist monks
8 have been targeted in such incidents. Accordingly, due to
9 the insufficient evidence of harm directed at ethnic Chinese
10 Indonesians or Buddhist monks, the agency did not err in
11 finding that Hidayat failed to demonstrate a well-founded
12 fear of persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421
13 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that the
14 absence of “solid support in the record” for the assertion of
15 a well-founded fear of persecution renders the fear
16 “speculative at best”); see also Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d
17 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (finding no error in the
18 agency’s determination that there was no pattern or practice
19 of persecution of ethnic Chinese or Catholic Indonesians).
20 That finding was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
21 removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief
22 were based on the same factual predicate. See Lecaj v.
4
1 Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010).
2 As to Hidayat’s argument that the BIA did not
3 sufficiently examine the evidence, we have reviewed the IJ’s
4 and the BIA’s decisions together because the BIA’s opinion
5 “closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning.” Wangchuck, 448 F.3d at
6 528 (considering both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions where
7 “the BIA did not expressly ‘adopt’ the IJ’s decision, but its
8 brief opinion closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning”). Based on
9 this review, we discern no basis for concluding that the
10 agency failed to examine the evidence. See Mendez v. Holder,
11 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[T]he agency
12 does not commit an ‘error of law’ every time an item of
13 evidence is not explicitly considered or is described with
14 imperfect accuracy . . . .”).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
17 stays VACATED.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20 Clerk of Court
5