18-3512
Yang v. Barr
BIA
Cohen, IJ
A205 886 942
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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 3rd day of November, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 XIAO LONG YANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-3512
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Xiao Long Yang, pro se, New York,
24 NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
27 Assistant Attorney General; Liza
28 S. Murcia, Senior Litigation
1 Counsel; Kathleen Kelly Volkert,
2 Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Xiao Long Yang, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 24,
12 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 3, 2017,
13 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s
14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiao
16 Long Yang, No. A 205 886 942 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2018), aff’g
17 No. A 205 886 942 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 3, 2017). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history.
20 We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented and
21 modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268,
22 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA denied relief solely
23 based on a failure to show a nexus to a protected ground, we
24 address only that dispositive determination and do not
2
1 address Yang’s arguments regarding the IJ’s corroboration
2 finding. Id. The applicable standards of review are well
3 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
4 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Edimo-Doualla v.
5 Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282-83 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show that
7 he has suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear
8 of future persecution, on account of “race, religion,
9 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
10 political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42) (defining
11 “refugee”), 1158(b) (giving Attorney General discretion to
12 grant certain refugees asylum). To establish persecution on
13 account of a political opinion, an . . . applicant must show
14 that the persecution arises from his or her own actual or
15 imputed political opinion.” Koudriachova v. Gonzales, 490
16 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2007). The persecutor must act from
17 more than a “generalized political motive,” INS v. Elias-
18 Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992); rather, the applicant
19 must show, “through direct or circumstantial evidence, that
20 the persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from the
21 applicant’s political belief,” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426
3
1 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005).
2 Under certain circumstances, opposition to government
3 corruption may constitute a political opinion for purposes of
4 asylum. See Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100–01 (2d Cir.
5 2010). Opposing corruption for purely self-interested
6 reasons may lack the requisite political motivation, whereas
7 “opposition to endemic corruption . . . may have a political
8 dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and
9 represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the
10 ruling regime.” Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 547–48.
11 In this case, the agency reasonably concluded that Yang
12 failed to establish that he was targeted by the government on
13 account of a political opinion or imputed political opinion.
14 Yang failed to demonstrate his motivation transcended his own
15 self-interest. Id. Yang testified that he protested on one
16 occasion to obtain his father’s release from detention
17 following a land dispute; he did not allege or establish that
18 he was attempting to expose endemic corruption or challenge
19 the government’s general authority or legitimacy. Cf. id.
20 at 547 (finding nexus to political opinion where petitioner
21 organized other business owners to “publicize and criticize
4
1 endemic corruption extending beyond his own case”); Ruqiang
2 Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding
3 supportive of nexus that petitioner intervened on behalf of
4 fellow workers to protest state-sponsored wage theft and his
5 stated motivation was not to recoup his own wages but to help
6 others).
7 The agency also reasonably concluded that Yang failed to
8 establish that the government had imputed a political opinion
9 to him. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 545 (asylum applicants
10 are required to show the persecutor’s motive through direct
11 or circumstantial evidence); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 482
12 (asylum applicant must show more than persecutor acting from
13 “generalized political motive”). Chinese officials allowed
14 Yang to protest unmolested for three hours and arrested him
15 only after he and his group stormed a government building.
16 Yang conceded he did not have the required permit and that he
17 and his family had no further issues with the government.
18 In sum, because Yang failed to demonstrate that his
19 actions “transcend[ed] mere self-protection,” extended beyond
20 a single protest, or that the government perceived him to be
21 a political opponent, the agency reasonably concluded that he
5
1 failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground as required
2 for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
3 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); Castro, 597 F.3d at 100–
4 01; Koudriachova, 490 F.3d at 263. Yang’s CAT claim is not
5 before us as he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See
6 Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119–21 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
9 stays VACATED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
12 Clerk of Court
6