18

- 3470 Wu v. Garland BIA Wright , IJ A 206 291 219 

### 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 13**  **th d**  **a y of**  **May , two thousand**  **twenty**

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  7 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO,** 8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **HONGYU W**  **U ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 18** 

**- 3470**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Henry Zhang, Esq., New York, NY

. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Br i an M

. Boynton, Acting 25 Assistant Attorney General ; Carl 26 McIntyre , Assistant Director; 27 Brooke Marie Maurer , Trial 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation , United States 30 Department of Justice, Washington, 31
D C. 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 3

is DENIED. 4

Petitioner Hongy u Wu , a native and citizen of the 5

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n October 24, 6

2018 decision of the BIA affirming a n October 11, 2017 7

decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wu’s 8

application for asylum and withholding of removal

. 1 In re 9

Hongyu Wu , No. A 206 291 219 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 20 1 8) , aff’g No. 10

A206 291 219 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 11, 2017)

. We assume 11

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 12

procedural history. 13

We have review ed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 14

BIA and address only the BIA’s conclusion that Wu failed to 15

establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and a protected 16

ground , as required for asylum and withholding of removal

. 17

See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 18

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 19

1 Wu does not challenge the agency’s denial of his request for relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture.3 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder , 1

762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 2

for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo ); Gjolaj 3

v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 468 F.3d 140, 4

143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for 5

substantial evidence)

. 6

An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must 7

establish “a sufficiently strong nexus” between the harm he 8

suffered or feared harm and a protected ground , here, Wu’s 9

alleged political opinion

. Castro v. Holder , 597 F.3d 93, 10

100 (2d Cir. 2010); se e also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 11

1231(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, Wu had to prove that his actual 12

or imputed political opinion was “at least one central reason” 13

that the police arrested, detained, and be a t him

. 8 U.S.C. 14

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) ; see also Matter of C

- T

- L

- , 25 I. & N. 15

Dec. 341, 348 (BIA 2010) (extending “one central reason” 16

standard to withholding claims)

. 17

The agency reasonably concluded that Wu failed to make 18

this showing. Opposition to corruption may constitute a 19

political opinion wher e it “transcends mere self

- protection 20

and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of 214 the ruling regime.” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 1

547

– 48 (2d Cir. 2005)

. Wu alleged that the police targeted 2

him because he was planning to appeal a lawsuit that he filed 3

to obtain compensation for damage to his property. Because 4

compensation was his motivation, he di d not establish that 5

his actions “transcend[ed] mere self

- protection” or were 6

“ directed toward a governing institution” as required to 7

demonstrate a political opinion. Id. (internal quotation 8

marks omitted)

. The record reflects that Wu was targeted to 9

cover up “isolated, aberrational acts of greed or 10

malfeasanc e” not because he was viewed as challenging 11

government institutions

. Id. at 548. His failure to show 12

that the police targeted him because of a political opinion 13

is dispositive of his petition for asylum and withholding of 14

removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A)

. 15

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 17

stays VACATED. 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, 20 Clerk of Court 21