18

- 3512 Yang v. Barr BIA Cohen , IJ A 205 886 942 

### 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 ELE CTRONIC 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.** 
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood**  **Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 3**  **r d**  **da y of**  **N o**  **v e**  **m b**  **e r**  **, two thousand**  **twenty .**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS ,**  7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  8 **DENNY CHIN ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **XIAO LONG YANG ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 18** 
**- 3512**  16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **Respondent .**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Xiao Long Yang, p ro s e , New York, 23 NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General ; Liza 27 S. Murcia, Senior Litigation 282 Counsel ; Kathleen Kelly Volkert , 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D C. 5
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Xiao Long Yang , a native and citizen of the 10
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n October 24, 11

2018 , decision of the BIA affirming a November 3, 2017 , 12
decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s 13
application for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief 14
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiao 15

Long Yang , No. A 205 886 942 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2018 ), aff’g 16

No. A 205 886 942 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 3, 2017 ). We 17
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18

proc edural history. 19
We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented and 20
modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 21

271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA denied relief solely 22
based on a failure to show a nexus to a protected ground, we 23
address only that dispositive determination and do not 243 address Yang’s arguments regarding the IJ’s corroboration 1
finding. Id. The applicable standards of re view are well 2

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 3

Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) ; Edimo

- Doualla v. 4

Gonzales , 464 F.3d 276, 282

- 83 (2d Cir. 2006 ). 5
To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show that 6
he has suffered past persecution, or has a well

- founded fear 7
of future persecution, on account of “ race, religion, 8
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 9
political opinion. ” 8 U.S.C. § § 1101(a)(42) (defining 10
“refugee”), 1158(b) (giving Attorney General discretion to 11
grant certain refugees asylum). To establish persecution on 12
account of a political opinion, an . . . applicant must show 13
that the persecution arises from his or her own ac tual or 14
imputed political opinion.” Koudriachova v. Gonzales , 490 15
F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2007). The persecutor must act from 16

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

17

Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992) ; rather, the applicant 18

must show, “th rough direct or circumstantial evidence, that 19
the persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from the 20
applicant’s political belief , ” Yueqing Zhan g v. Gonzales , 426 214 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005)

. 1
Under certain circumstances, o pposition to government 2
corruption may constitute a political opinion for purposes of 3
asylum. See Castro v. Holder , 597 F.3d 93, 100

– 01 (2d Cir. 4
2010). Opposing corruption for purely self

- interested 5
reasons may lack the requisite political motivation, wh ereas 6
“opposition to endemic corruption . . . may have a political 7

dimension when it transcends mere self

- protection and 8
represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the 9
ruling regime.” Yueqing Zhang , 426 F.3d at 547

– 48. 10
In this case, the age ncy reasonably concluded that Yang 11
failed to establish that he was targeted by the government on 12
account of a political opinion or imputed political opinion. 13
Yang failed to demonstrate his motivation transcended his own 14

self

- interest. Id. Yang testified that he protested on one 15

occasion to obtain his father ’s release from detention 16
following a land dispute; he did not allege or establish that 17
he was attempting to expose endemic corruption or challenge 18
the government’s general authority or legitimacy. Cf. i d. 19

at 547 (finding nexus to political opinion where petitioner 20
organized other business owners to “ publicize and criticize 215 endemic corruption extending beyond his own case”) ; Ruqiang 1

Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 2012) ( finding 2
supportive of nexus that petitioner intervened on behalf of 3
fellow workers to protest state

- sponsored wage theft and his 4

stated motivation was not to recoup his own wages but to help 5

others). 6
The agency also reasonably concluded that Ya n g failed to 7
establish that the government had imputed a political opinion 8

to him. See Yueqing Zhang , 426 F.3d at 545 (asylum applicants 9
are required to show the persecutor’s motive through direct 10

or circumstantial evidence) ; Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 482 11

( asylum applicant must show more than persecutor acting from 12
“generalized political motive”). Chinese official s allowed 13
Yang to protest unmolested for three hours and arrested him 14
only after he and his group stormed a government building. 15
Yang conceded he did not have the required permit and that he 16
and his family had no further issues with the government

. 17

In su m, b ecause Yang failed to demonstrate that his 18

actions “transcend[ed] mere self

- protectio n , ” extended beyond 19
a single protest, or that the government perceived him to be 20
a political opponent, the agency reasonably concluded that he 216 failed to establish a ne xus to a protected ground as required 1
for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 2

§ § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) , 1231(b)(3)(A) ; Castro , 597 F.3d at 100

– 3

01; Koudriachova , 490 F.3d at 263. Yang’s CAT claim is not 4

before us as he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See 5
Karaj v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 113, 119

– 21 (2d Cir. 2006). 6
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED a nd 8

stays VACATED. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 11 Clerk of Court 12