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 

New York, on the 3rd 4 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 
2

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, 417 F.3d 268, 

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 
3

1 address Yang’s arguments regarding the IJ’s corroboration 

2 finding. Id. 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); Edimo-Doualla v. 

5 Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282-83 (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.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(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 

16 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2007). The persecutor must act from 

17 more than a “generalized political motive,” INS v. Elias18 Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (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 
4

1 F.3d 540, 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, 597 F.3d 93, 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. Id. 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. id.

20 at 547 (finding nexus to political opinion where petitioner 

21 organized other business owners to “publicize and criticize 
5

1 endemic corruption extending beyond his own case”); Ruqiang 

2 Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294, 299 (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, 502 U.S. at 482 

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 
6

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, 462 F.3d 113, 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