Fnu v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 17 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •          09-3283-ag
    Fnu v. Holder
    BIA
    Balasquide, IJ
    A099 928 356
    A099 928 357
    A099 928 358
    A076 143 102
    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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 16 th day of June, two thousand ten.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                RALPH K. WINTER,
    8                JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
    9                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    10                        Circuit Judges.
    11       _______________________________________
    12
    13       LINDA FNU, SUKIMIN THEN, MICHAEL
    14       ALVIN, MICHAEL KEVIN,
    15                Petitioners,
    16
    17                       v.                                     09-3283-ag
    18                                                              NAC
    19       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    20       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    21                Respondent.
    22       _______________________________________
    23
    24       FOR PETITIONERS:              Aaron Shapiro, The Shapiro Law Firm,
    25                                     New York, New York.
    26
    27       FOR RESPONDENT:               Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    1                            General, Civil Division; Thomas B.
    2                            Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel;
    3                            Karen Y. Stewart, Attorney, Office
    4                            of Immigration Litigation, United
    5                            States Department of Justice,
    6                            Washington, D.C.
    7
    8        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    9    Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    10   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
    11   is DENIED.
    12       The Petitioners, Linda Fnu, Sukimin Then, Michael
    13   Alvin, and Michael Kevin, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
    14   seek review of a July 13, 2009, order of the BIA affirming
    15   the December 3, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
    16   Javier Balasquide denying their applications for asylum,
    17   withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
    18   Against Torture (“CAT”).   In re Fnu, Nos. A099 928
    19   356/357/358, A076 143 102 (B.I.A. July 13, 2009), aff’g Nos.
    20   A099 928 356/357/358, A076 143 102 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
    21   Dec. 3, 2007).   We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
    22   underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
    23       Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
    24   IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision.    See
    25   Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 
    417 F.3d 268
    , 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
    26   The applicable standards of review are well-established.
    2
    1    See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
    
    2 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
    3    I.   Asylum
    4         Although the petitioners correctly assert that non-life
    5    threatening violence and physical abuse may rise to the
    6    level of persecution, we find no error in the IJ’s
    7    conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish such
    8    persecution in their case.     See Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467
    9  
    F.3d 223
     (2d Cir. 2006).     As the IJ found: (1) Fnu failed to
    10   provide any evidence that the injuries she suffered in the
    11   1998 riots were permanent or serious or that she received
    12   any medical treatment; and (2) Then testified that he was
    13   never physically harmed.     The IJ further found that the
    14   harassment Then endured at the hands of native Indonesians
    15   did not rise to the level of persecution.     We are
    16   unpersuaded by the petitioners’ argument that the IJ failed
    17   to consider the incidents they described cumulatively.       Cf.
    18   Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 
    494 F.3d 281
    , 290 (2d
    19   Cir. 2007); Poradisova v. Gonzales, 
    420 F.3d 70
    , 79-80 (2d
    20   Cir. 2005).    Thus, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
    21   determination that the petitioners failed to establish past
    22   persecution.    See   Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433
    3
    1  
    F.3d 332
    , 341 (2d Cir. 2006).
    2         In the absence of past persecution, an alien can
    3    demonstrate eligibility for relief if he can show that he
    4    has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of
    5    a protected ground.    
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(2)(i);
    6    Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 
    357 F.3d 169
    , 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
    7    Here, however, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
    8    conclusion that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a
    9    well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their
    10   Chinese ethnicity and Christian beliefs.    In support of that
    11   conclusion, the IJ noted that: (1) despite being harmed in
    12   the 1998 riots, the petitioners did not depart Indonesia
    13   permanently until 2006; (2) between 1998 and 2006, Fnu
    14   reported only one other minor incident of harm and Then was
    15   never physically harmed; (3) Fnu traveled to the United
    16   States in 2002 for approximately 30 days and then
    17   voluntarily returned to Indonesia; and (4) the petitioners
    18   provided no evidence that their children were ever harmed in
    19   Indonesia. 1   The petitioners do not address, much less
    1
    In our recent decision in Kone v. Holder, we found
    that return trips to the applicant’s home country could
    not alone rebut the presumption of future persecution or
    support an adverse credibility determination. 
    596 F.3d 141
    , 150 (2d Cir. 2010). Here, however, the IJ
    considered Fnu’s return trip to Indonesia among numerous
    4
    1    challenge these findings.   Instead, they merely reiterate
    2    the incidents of harm they referred to in arguing that they
    3    suffered past persecution, asserting that these same
    4    incidents show that they have a well-founded fear.       In light
    5    of the IJ’s findings as to past persecution, the agency
    6    reasonably concluded that the petitioners failed to
    7    establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.       The
    8    petitioners have waived any separate argument that there is
    9    a pattern and practice of persecution.     8 C.F.R.
    10   § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A),(B).   In any event, the BIA
    11   reasonably found that the record did not show such a pattern
    12   or practice.   See Santoso v. Holder, 
    580 F.3d 110
    , 112 (2d
    13   Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
    14   II.   Withholding of Removal and CAT Relief
    15         As the government argues, the petitioners failed to
    16   challenge before the BIA the IJ’s denial of withholding of
    17   removal and CAT relief, and do not raise any such arguments
    18   in their brief before this Court.     Accordingly, any
    19   challenge to the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
    20   and CAT relief is deemed abandoned.     See Gui Yin Liu v. INS,
    other findings, including a detailed analysis of country
    conditions. Moreover, because none of the petitioners
    suffered past persecution, they were not entitled to a
    presumption of future persecution.
    5
    1    
    508 F.3d 716
    , 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007).
    2        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    3    DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    4    removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    5    is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    6    this petition is DISMISSED as moot.     Any pending request for
    7    oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    8    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    9    Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    10                                 FOR THE COURT:
    11                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    12
    6