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,

,

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.

The applicable standards of review are well

3 established. See

(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.

4 Holder,

(2d Cir. 2009); Edimo-Doualla v.

5 Gonzales,

(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.”

(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

, 263 (2d Cir. 2007). The persecutor must act from

17 more than a “generalized political motive,” INS v. Elias-

18 Zacarias,

(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

, 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,

, 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.

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.

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,

(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,

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,

, 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