
    Raynold STEFANUS, Sylvia Elisabeth, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2108-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 30, 2010.
    Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Hillel R. Smith, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Raynold Stefanus and Sylvia Elisabeth, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of an April 21, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the November 28, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel Vide-la, which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Raynold Stefanus, Sylvia Elisabeth, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 2009), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y.C. Nov. 28, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ and BIA decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

The only issue before us is whether the agency erred by failing to consider Petitioners’ claim that there exists a pattern and practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii), 1208.16(b)(2). The IJ made no explicit pattern and practice finding. However, the BIA did consider that claim, and found, as it has time and again, that there is no such pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See, e.g., In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 740-41 (BIA 2005) (citing Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir.2005)). We have found no error in such decisions. See, e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.2009).

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).  