SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of a June 30, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the October 30, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan which denied their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tjia et. al., Nos. A099 682 981/982/980, A099 683 788 (BIA June 30, 2009), aff'g Nos. A099 682 981/982/980, A099 683 788 (Immig.Ct.N.Y.City, Oct. 30, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings of the BIA and IJ for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that they failed to demonstrate past persecution. Nor do they argue that they would be singled out for persecution if returned to Indonesia. Instead, they contend that there exists in Indonesia a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnically Chinese and Christian Indonesians. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). However, the BIA has found time and again that there is no such pattern or practice. 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)). This Court has found no error in such decisions. See, e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009). Although the agency errs by ignoring a pattern or practice claim, see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91-93 (2d Cir. 2007), it did not do so here. To the contrary, after analyzing the “voluminous background evidence,” and specifically addressing the State Department Country Report and International Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia, the IJ determined that despite ongoing problems in that country, the record did not support petitioners’ claims that their fear of persecution was objectively well-founded. That finding was not erroneous. See Santoso, 580 F.3d at 112; Mufied, 508 F.3d at 91-93.

*93 Because the agency did not err in concluding that petitioners were not eligible for asylum, it did not err in denying their application for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of their application for CAT relief.

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.