PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT D. SACK, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Nina M.M. Andrias, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a March 5, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the January 15, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth Lamb, which denied Andrias’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Nina M.M. Andrias, No. A099 607 716 (BIA Mar. 5, 2009), aff'g No. A099 607 716 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 15, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Because, in its order, the BIA adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, we review both decisions. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-settled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2008).

The agency did not err in denying Andrias’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. Andrias does not challenge the agency’s finding that the harm she suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. Nor does she argue that she would be singled out for persecution if returned to Indonesia. Instead, she contends 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 no such pattern or practice has been proven. In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (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 if it ignores a pattern or practice claim, see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91-93 (2d Cir. 2007), it did not do so here, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e presume that an IJ has taken into account all of the evidence before him, unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise.”).

Because the agency did not err in concluding that Andrias was not eligible for asylum, it did not err in denying her application for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

*195 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.