
    Lili LINDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-315-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 6, 2011.
    H. Raymond Fasano, Madeo & Fasano, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Yanal Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation; U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Lili Linda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a December 29, 2009 decision of the BIA affirming the March 31, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, which denied Linda’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lili Linda, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA Dec. 29, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct. Hartford Mar. 31, 2008). 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’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008)(internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008).

As an initial matter, Linda waives any challenge to the agency’s determination that she failed to demonstrate past persecution or her eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Therefore, the sole issue is whether Linda demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her claim that there exists in Indonesia a pattern and practice of persecution of Chinese Christians.

Contrary to Linda’s argument, there is no indication that the BIA ignored any material evidence that she submitted. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008) (recognizing that the Court has rejected the notion that the agency must “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006) (presuming that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”). In fact, in affirming the IJ’s decision, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s extensive evaluation of the evidence and conclusion that Linda failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Moreover, the agency reasonably found that, although there is some discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, such discrimination appears to be declining and is not sufficient to support Linda’s claim of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her ethnicity. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.2009) (holding that the evidence supported a determination that there was no pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia). The agency also reasonably acknowledged that incidents of violence between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia continue, but that such violence did not occur countrywide and that a large percentage of the population is Christian. See id. Thus, the agency did not err in concluding that Linda had failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id.; see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 171 (recognizing that this Court does not “attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency”).

Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s denial of Linda’s application for asylum insofar as it was based on her claim of a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  