15-3058
Zhou v. Sessions
BIA
Hom, IJ
A205 825 460
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 25th day of May, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GOUJUN ZHOU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-3058
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,*
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24
25
26 *Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
27 General Jefferson B. Sessions III is automatically substituted for
28 former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent.
29
1 FOR PETITIONER: Goujun Zhou, pro se, Flushing, NY.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
4 Assistant Attorney General; Terri J.
5 Scadron, Assistant Director;
6 Anthony W. Norwood, Senior
7 Litigation Counsel, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, United
9 States Department of Justice,
10 Washington, DC.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
15 DENIED.
16 Petitioner Goujun Zhou, a native and citizen of the
17 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 28, 2015,
18 decision of the BIA affirming an April 14, 2014, decision of
19 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
20 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
21 (“CAT”). In re Goujun Zhou, No. 205 825 460 (B.I.A. Aug. 28,
22 2015), aff’g No. A205 825 460 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 14,
23 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
24 facts and procedural history in this case.
25 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA,
26 i.e., minus the findings that the BIA declined to reach—the
27 adverse credibility determination and the conclusion that the
28 harm suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See
2
1 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
2 Cir. 2005). 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). The agency did not
5 err in finding that Zhou failed to satisfy his burden for asylum,
6 withholding of removal, or CAT relief.
7 Asylum and Withholding of Removal
8 In order to demonstrate eligibility for asylum and
9 withholding of removal, “the applicant must establish that
10 race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
11 group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central
12 reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); In re
14 C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010). Relief “may
15 be granted where there is more than one motive for mistreatment,
16 as long as at least one central reason for the mistreatment is
17 on account of a protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d
18 289, 297 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). To
19 establish that persecution or a fear of persecution is on
20 account of an applicant’s political opinion, the applicant must
21 “show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the
22 persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s
3
1 political belief,” rather than merely by the persecutor’s own
2 opinion. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir.
3 2005) (emphasis added). Although retaliation for an
4 applicant’s opposition to endemic government corruption may
5 constitute persecution on account of a political opinion, a
6 persecutor’s suppression of an applicant’s challenge to
7 isolated, aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance does not.
8 See id. at 548.
9 Zhou claimed that police in China detained and beat him when
10 he refused to leave his employer’s office in protest of his
11 employer’s failure to pay him. Zhou testified that his
12 employer had informed him that the company could not afford to
13 pay anyone their entire salary, and he admitted that he had no
14 bases to conclude that the company’s inability to pay was due
15 to corruption or other malfeasance. Further, he admitted that
16 he was not politically active or a member of any unions or other
17 organizations in China. Because Zhou did not assert any facts
18 to support a finding that he had acted (or that police believed
19 him to have acted) in opposition to corruption or other
20 malfeasance, the agency did not err in finding his account
21 insufficient to demonstrate that the harm he suffered was on
22 account of his political opinion. See Yan Fang Zhang v.
4
1 Gonzales, 452 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2006) (protesting economic
2 layoffs and being removed from premises by police during a
3 protest of layoffs does not indicate political motive); cf.
4 Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 547 (“Where the dispute is such that
5 the asylum seeker did not merely seek economic advantage but
6 mounted a challenge to the legitimacy and authority of the
7 ruling regime itself, and where the applicant can show that this
8 political threat is the motive for the persecution perpetrated
9 or feared, the applicant can meet the definition of a refugee.”
10 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
11 Accordingly, the agency reasonably determined that Zhou
12 failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and
13 fears and his political opinion, and did not err in denying him
14 asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
15 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A).
16 Convention Against Torture
17 An applicant for CAT relief must “establish that it is more
18 likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to
19 the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
20 Unlike asylum and withholding of removal, CAT relief does not
21 require a nexus to any ground. See id.
22 There is no merit to Zhou’s contention that the agency
5
1 failed to consider his eligibility for CAT relief independent
2 of its nexus finding. The IJ independently evaluated Zhou’s
3 claim of a likelihood of torture.
4 IJ Bias
5 Although rare, remand may be required when an IJ
6 demonstrates bias and hostility towards an asylum applicant.
7 See Guo-Le Huang v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 142, 148 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 A review of the record reveals that the IJ appropriately
9 exercised his statutory authority to “interrogate, examine, and
10 cross-examine the alien,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), and
11 performed his duty to develop the record without assuming the
12 role of advocate for either Zhou or the Government, see Islam
13 v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
16 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
17 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
18 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
19 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
20 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
21 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6