Lintje JOHANES, a.k.a. Lintje Johannes, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 358 F. App'x 280

SUMMARY ORDER Lintje Johanes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a February 19, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the September 10, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lintje Johanes, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.

We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). We review de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that Johanes failed to meet her burden of proof on her application for withholding of removal. This Court has consistently declined to disturb the agency’s finding that there is no pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia.

See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.2009) (citing In re A-M-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 787 (BIA 2005)). Moreover, the record in this case includes reports by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Resource Information Center and the Department of State indicating that discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia has greatly declined, and that many laws discriminating against ethnic Chinese have been repealed.

Finally, the Board reasonably noted that Johanes’s actions in remaining in Indonesia for a substantial amount of time after she claims she was harmed and returning to the country after arriving in the United States in 2006 undermine her claim, as does the fact that her children and husband continue to live safely in the country. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 68 n. 2 (2d Cir.2007); Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir.2005); see also In re A-E-M-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1157, 1160 (BIA 1998).

Because Johanes failed to meaningfully argue her eligibility for CAT relief before either the agency or this Court, we deem such claim for relief abandoned. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007). 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(b). . Johanes concedes that we are without jurisdiction to consider the agency’s pretermission of her untimely asylum application. . We reject Johanes’s request that we adopt the Ninth Circuit's "disfavored group” analysis. See Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.2004)