Erna Florencie SORONGAN, I Ketut Bagianta, I Wayan Cenna Widhiantara, Ni Made Cheryl Widyanetta, I Nyoman Cerrens Widhianta, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 400 F. App'x 604

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioners, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of a July 10, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the July 27, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, which denied their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sorongan, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/601/602/603/604 (B.I.A. July 10, 2009), ajfg Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/601/602/603/604 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 27, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we consider 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 quotations omitted). The applicable standards of review are well-established. Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). The agency did not err in finding that the harm the lead petitioner, Erna Floren-cie Sorongan, claimed to have suffered, while unfortunate and offensive, did not rise the level of persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006). Contrary to Petitioners’ contention, the agency’s analysis did not run afoul of our decision in Man-zur, because the agency did not analyze a pattern of harms by isolating each incident and disposing of it on separate grounds. See Manzur, 494 F.3d at 290. Rather, because the agency expressly stated that it considered the claims in the aggregate, and nothing in its decisions suggests that it did not actually do so, the agency did not err in finding that Petitioners did not establish past persecution. See id.; Ivanishvili, 433 F.3d at 341.

Moreover, although the agency did not expressly list every incident of harm in Petitioners’ application for relief, because it referenced the most important incidents and indicated that it had considered her entire claim, its analysis was not flawed. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that the agency need not “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 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).