09-1705-ag
Qiu v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A094 048 575
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19 th day of February, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 JING ZHE QIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1705-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.
23
24 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
25 General, Carl H. McIntyre, Justin R.
26 Markel, Trial Attorney, Office of
27 Immigration Litigation, Civil
28 Division, United States Department
29 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jing Zhe Qiu, an ethnic Korean native and
6 citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a
7 March 31, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the September 13,
8 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson
9 denying Qiu’s applications for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Jing Zhe Qiu, No. A094 048 575 (B.I.A. Mar.
12 31, 2009), aff’g No. A094 048 575 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City,
13 Sept. 13, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
14 the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 We find no error in the IJ’s conclusion that Qiu failed
22 to establish that the harm he fears bears a nexus to one of
23 the protected grounds enumerated in the Immigration and
2
1 Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). To establish
2 eligibility for relief, Qiu was required to show that “race,
3 religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
4 group, or political opinion was or will be at least one
5 central reason for persecuting [him].” 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I.
7 & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2007).
8 Qiu alleged that Chinese authorities are looking to
9 arrest him because of an imputed political opinion, namely,
10 his putative political opposition to China’s refugee policy.
11 However, Qiu himself asserted during his testimony that if
12 he returned to China, authorities would arrest him “because
13 [he] helped North Korean refugees.” Arrest for violation of
14 a generally applicable law is not persecution. Qun Yang v.
15 McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 163 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam);
16 see also Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 239
17 (2d Cir. 1992). Moreover, as the BIA noted, when Qiu was
18 detained for this activity, he was not mistreated, his
19 detention lasted seven days, and he was released upon
20 payment of a fine. Cf. Matter of S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486,
21 494-95 (BIA 1996)(noting infliction of physical harm.) Qiu
22 failed to present any evidence that would compel a
23 reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the agency’s nexus
3
1 finding was erroneous. See Weng, 562 F.3d at 513.
2 Because the agency reasonably found that Qiu failed to
3 show the requisite nexus to a protected ground, it properly
4 denied his application for asylum and withholding of
5 removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Although Qiu recites the
6 standards for CAT relief in his brief, he articulates no
7 challenge to the BIA’s rejection of his CAT claim. Any
8 potential challenge to that rejection in thus waived. See
9 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
10 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
23
4