SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Junaedy Tjitajaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a January 20, 2010 decision of the BIA affirming the March 27, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Javier Balas-quide denying Tjitajaya’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Junaedy Tjitajaya, No. A094 044 947 (BIA Jan. 20, 2010), aff'g No. A094 044 947 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 27, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

The only issue before us is whether the agency erred in finding that Tjitajaya failed to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia. In order to establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant is not required to demonstrate that he would be individually singled out for persecution if he demonstrates a “pattern or practice” of “persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to” him on account of a protected ground and establishes his own “inclusion in, and identification with,” that group. 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 of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See, e.g., In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005). We have found no error in such decisions. See, e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009).

Because the agency reasonably found that he did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, Tjitajaya’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief fail as they were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.8d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

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 *382 of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).