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 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals