
    Aurica Mihaela LINGURAR, Radu Doru Lingurar, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1292-AG.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 3, 2012.
    
      Zamir Iosepovici, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; David V. Bernal, Assistant Director; Stuart S. Nickum, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Aurica Mihaela Lingurar and Radu Doru Lingurar, (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Romania, seek review of a March 7, 2011 order of the BIA affirming the May 13, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aurica Mihaela Lingurar, Radu Doru Lingurar, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. March 7, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 13, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The agency reasonably determined that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioners proffered documentary evidence, including State Department Reports from 2008 and 2004, that noted persistent and widespread discrimination against Roma in Romania by the police, employers, landlords, and within the education and political systems. Specifically, the background materials relate several instances in the past decade when police brutality against Roma has resulted in death or severe injury. Based on this evidence, the agency reasonably found that Petitioners demonstrated that serious discrimination against Roma existed in Romania. The agency concluded, however, that these isolated incidents of documented police brutality and other harassment and discrimination are insufficiently systemic or pervasive to constitute a pattern or practice of persecution. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.2009) (upholding rejection of pattern or practice claim when religious attacks were localized).

The record did not compel the agency to resolve the pattern or practice analysis in Petitioners’ favor. Substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion, and Petitioners were found not credible. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-59, 171 (2d Cir.2008). We therefore defer to the agency’s determination that Petitioners did not establish a pattern or practice of persecution. See Yanqin Weng, 562 F.3d at 513.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  