18-3470
Wu v. Garland
BIA
Wright, IJ
A206 291 219
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 13th day of May, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HONGYU WU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-3470
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, Esq., New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting
26 Assistant Attorney General; Carl
27 McIntyre, Assistant Director;
28 Brooke Marie Maurer, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Hongyu Wu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 24,
7 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an October 11, 2017
8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wu’s
9 application for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 In re
10 Hongyu Wu, No. A 206 291 219 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2018), aff’g No.
11 A206 291 219 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 11, 2017). We assume
12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history.
14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
15 BIA and address only the BIA’s conclusion that Wu failed to
16 establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and a protected
17 ground, as required for asylum and withholding of removal.
18 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
19 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
1 Wu does not challenge the agency’s denial of his request for
relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture.
2
1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder,
2 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings
3 for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo); Gjolaj
4 v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140,
5 143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for
6 substantial evidence).
7 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must
8 establish “a sufficiently strong nexus” between the harm he
9 suffered or feared harm and a protected ground, here, Wu’s
10 alleged political opinion. Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93,
11 100 (2d Cir. 2010); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i),
12 1231(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, Wu had to prove that his actual
13 or imputed political opinion was “at least one central reason”
14 that the police arrested, detained, and beat him. 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N.
16 Dec. 341, 348 (BIA 2010) (extending “one central reason”
17 standard to withholding claims).
18 The agency reasonably concluded that Wu failed to make
19 this showing. Opposition to corruption may constitute a
20 political opinion where it “transcends mere self-protection
21 and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of
3
1 the ruling regime.” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
2 547–48 (2d Cir. 2005). Wu alleged that the police targeted
3 him because he was planning to appeal a lawsuit that he filed
4 to obtain compensation for damage to his property. Because
5 compensation was his motivation, he did not establish that
6 his actions “transcend[ed] mere self-protection” or were
7 “directed toward a governing institution” as required to
8 demonstrate a political opinion. Id. (internal quotation
9 marks omitted). The record reflects that Wu was targeted to
10 cover up “isolated, aberrational acts of greed or
11 malfeasance” not because he was viewed as challenging
12 government institutions. Id. at 548. His failure to show
13 that the police targeted him because of a political opinion
14 is dispositive of his petition for asylum and withholding of
15 removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
18 stays VACATED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
4