T he C l erk of C ourti s di r ect ed t o amend the capt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. 1 09 - 27 55 - ag Q i u v . H ol der UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I N G S B Y S U MM A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY O RDER FI LED O N O R A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED A ND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LO CAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UMM AR Y OR DE R” ) . A P AR T Y CI T I NG T O A S UMM AR Y OR DE R M US T S E RV E A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of

the U ni t ed St at es Courtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani elPatr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear lStr eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 31 day of A ugus t , tw o thous and t en. st P RE S E NT : RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, GE RA RD E . L YNC H, C i rcui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HAI HUA QI U, 1 P eti t i oner ,

v. N o. 09- 2755- ag ER I C H . H O LD ER , J R. , U N I TED STA TES ATTO RN EY G ENER AL,

R es pondent .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FO R PE T I T I O N E R : H E N R Y Z H A N G , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. F O R R E S P O N D E N T : A R I N A Z A R O V , T ri al A tt o rne y (T o n y W e st, A ssist an t A tt o rne y G en era l & B lai r T . O ’C o n n o r, A ss ista n t D ir e c to r, on br i ef ), O ff i ce of I m m i gr ati on L i t i gati on , U nit ed S t at es D epartm ent o f Ju s t i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.2

U PO N D U E C O N SI D ER A TI O N of thi s pe t i t i on f

orr evi ew of

a B oar d of

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on, i ti s he r eby O R D E R E D , A D JU D G E D , A N D D E C R E E D thatthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D. Pet i t i onerH aiH ua Q i u, a nat i ve of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C hi na ( “PR C ”) , s eeks r e v i e w o f

aJu n e 9 , 2 0 0 9 o r d e ro f th e BI A r e v e r s i n g I mm i g r a t i o n Ju d g e ( “ I J ” ) Ro b e rtD. W ei s el ’ s deci s i on t o gr antQ i u’ s pe t i t i on f ora s yl um . See I n r e H aiH ua Q ui , N o. A 098 998 310 at2 ( B . I . A . June 9, 2009) , r ev’ g N o. A 098 998 310 ( I m m i g. C t . N . Y . C i ty June 28, 2007) . U nderthe ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on al one. See Y an C hen v. G onzal es , 417 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 2d C i r . 2005). W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f act fo r “ su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ,” a n dre v iew d e n o v o le g a l iss u e s a n dth e ap p lica tio n o f law to fa c t. S e e C a s tr o v . H o l d e r , 5 9 7 F . 3 d9 3 , 9 9 ( 2 dC i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . I n ap p l y i n g th e s e s t a n d a r d s , we as s um e f

am i l i ari ty w i th the f

act s and pr ocedur alhi s t ory, w hi ch w e r ef er ence onl y as nece s s ary t o expl ai n ourdeci s i on t o deny the peti t i on. I n s eeki ng a s yl um , Q i u c l ai m ed thatc orruptl ocalgove rnm entof fi ci al s of

f er ed i nad equ at e compens at i on f orthe demol i t i on of

herf ami l y’ s hom e and arr es t ed herf or i m ped i ng herf

ami l y’ s evi ct i on. S h e n o w asse rt s th at th e B IA erredas a m att er of law in concludi ng thatthes e ci r cumst ance s fa i l ed t o demonstr at e ( 1) per s ecuti on ( 2) on acc ountof p o lit ica l b e lief. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) ( re qu irin g a sy lu m ap p lica n t to d e m o n stra te w e llf ounded fearo f

per s ecuti on on acc ountof “r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty, m ember s hip i n a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro up , o r p o litic a l o p in io n ” ). W e d is a g re e .3

A s thi s c ourtha s rul ed, aper s on’ s “mer e s ubj ecti on” t o an oppos ed pol i cy orpr acti ce of gener alappl i cati on “w i l l noti t s el f qual i f y as per s ecuti on ‘ on acc ountof’ pol i t i cal op i nion. ” Y ueq ing Z han g v . G on zal es, 42 6 F . 3d54 0, 54 5 (2d C i r. 20 05 ). N evertheles s,

“ o p p o sitio n to e n d e m ic c o rrup tio n o r e x to rtio n . . . m a y h a v e ap o lit ica l d im e n sio n w h e n it tr ans cends m er e s el f

- pr ot ecti on and r epr es ent s a chal l enge t o the l egi t i m acy orauthor i ty of the rul i ng r egi m e. ” I d. at547- 48. I n s uch cas es , w e query w hetheran appl i cant ’ s oppos i t i on w as “di r ect ed t ow ar d a governi ng i ns t i tut i on, oronl y agai ns ti ndi vi dual s w hos e corrupt i on w as aberr at i onal , and w hetherthe per s ecut orw as att empt i ng t o s uppr es s ac hal l enge t o the governi ng i ns t i tut i on, as oppos ed t o a cha l l enge t o i s ol at ed, aberr at i onalact s of gr eed or m al f eas ance . ” I d. at548 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) . A ppl yi ng thes e pr i ncipl es h e re , w e id e n tifyn o th in g inth e re c o rdin d ica tin g th a t Q iu ’s o p p o s itio n w a s g ro u n d e din a n y th in g b e y o n dh e r p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s o r r e p re se n ted th e k in do f b ro a d e r c h a llen g e to governi ng i ns t i tut i ons thatw e have f ound coul d cons t i tut e a pol i t i calopi ni on. See i d. at542- 4 3 . C o n tr ary to Q iu’s argu m en t, th e B IA did n o t exc ee dit s au tho ri ty in rev ersing the IJ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t Q iu ’s tre a tm e n t w a s o n a c c o u n t o f a p o lit ica l o p in io n . T h e B IA h a s a u th o rity t o r evi ew an I J ’ s conclus i ons of l aw de novo, i ncludi ng conclus i ons aboutw hetherharm w as i nf l i ct ed “on a ccountof

” a pr ot ect ed gr ound. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i i ) ; s ee a l s o M att er o f A -S -B -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 4 9 3 , 4 9 7 (B .I.A . 2 0 0 8 ). B e c au se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA d id noterri n deci di ng thatQ i u’ s tr eatm entw as noton acc ountof a pol i t i calopi ni on, w e nee d4

n o t ad dre ss h e r c h a llen g e to th e B IA ’s d e term in a tio n th a t h e r tre a tm e n t d idn o t am o u n t to p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r th a t s h e d idn o t p o s s e s s afe a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . W e h av e c o n side redQ iu’s o ther a rgu m en ts on ap p ea l and c o n clud e tha t th ey are w i thoutm er i t . A ccor di ngl y, Q i u’ s pet i t i on f orr evi ew i s D E N I E D and herm ot i on f ora st ay o f r e m o v a l is D IS M IS S E D a s m o o t. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt