12-5055
Cui v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A087 638 697
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 10th day of February, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
REENA RAGGI,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SONG ZHU CUI,
Petitioner,
v. 12-5055
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron,
Assistant Director; Colin J. Tucker,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Song Zhu Cui, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30, 2012
decision of the BIA affirming the May 5, 2011 decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, denying her asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Song Zhu Cui, No. A087 638
697 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2012), aff’g No. A087 638 697 (Immig.
Ct. N.Y. City May 5, 2011). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
in this case.
We have reviewed “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) (quotation marks omitted). The
applicable standards of review are well established. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417
F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
We find no error in the agency’s denial of asylum and
withholding of removal based on Cui’s failure to demonstrate
2
a nexus between the harm she suffered and fears and a
protected ground. To establish eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal, “the applicant must establish that
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion was or will be at least
one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Matter of J-B-
N- and S-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 213 (B.I.A. 2007); Matter
of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010).
Under certain circumstances, retaliation for opposition
to endemic government corruption may constitute persecution
on account of political opinion. See Ruqiang v. Holder, 693
F.3d 294, 298 (2d Cir. 2012). But a petitioner must prove
that a persecutor acted out of more than a personal interest
in benefitting from corruption; the question is “whether the
persecutor was attempting to suppress a challenge to the
governing institution, as opposed to a challenge to
isolated, aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance.”
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 548 (2d Cir. 2005).
Moreover, an applicant must show that the government played
a role in the alleged persecution by proving either that a
government agent committed the alleged acts, or that the
3
"the government has proved unwilling to control” a private
actor. Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir.
2008)(quotation marks omitted).
Here, the IJ found that the petitioner failed to
establish “that the corruption that she exposed was directly
related to any governmental functions . . . [or that] the
people who attacked her or who attacked her husband were
anywhere [sic] related to any governmental authorities.”
Special App’x at 10. In addition, the IJ noted that the
petitioner testified that the police tried to apprehend her
attackers, but told her they were “unable to find the
attackers.” Id. at 8. The BIA upheld these findings, and
agreed with the IJ that Cui failed to demonstrate that her
mistreatment was on account of her political opinion, or
that her attacks had some connection to government
authorities. Upon review of the record, we conclude that
these findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, because the agency reasonably determined
that Cui failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she
suffered or feared and a protected ground, the agency did
not err in denying her asylum and withholding of removal,
and we need not consider her additional challenges to the
4
agency’s denial of those forms of relief. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We further note that
Cui does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. Cui’s 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).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
Cui v. Holder
Combined Opinion