18-3470

Wu v. Garland

BIA

Wright, IJ

A206 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 

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 13th 4 day of May, two thousand twenty.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,

9 MICHAEL H. PARK,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 HONGYU WU,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 18-3470

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, Esq., New York, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 

26 Assistant Attorney General; Carl 

27 McIntyre, Assistant Director; 

28 Brooke Marie Maurer, Trial 

29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

30 Litigation, United States 

31 Department of Justice, Washington, 

32 DC.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Hongyu Wu, a native and citizen of the 

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

7 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an October 11, 2017

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

9 application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 In re 

10 Hongyu Wu, No. A 206 291 219 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2018), aff’g No. 

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

12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

13 procedural history.

14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 

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

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

17 ground, as required for asylum and withholding of removal. 

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

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

1 Wu does not challenge the agency’s denial of his request for 

relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture.
3

1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 

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

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

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

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

6 substantial evidence).

7 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must

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

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

10 alleged political opinion. Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 

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

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

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

14 that the police arrested, detained, and beat him. 8 U.S.C. 

15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. 

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

17 standard to withholding claims). 

18 The agency reasonably concluded that Wu failed to make 

19 this showing. Opposition to corruption may constitute a 

20 political opinion where it “transcends mere self-protection 

21 and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of 
4

1 the ruling regime.” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,

2 547–48 (2d Cir. 2005). Wu alleged that the police targeted 

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

4 to obtain compensation for damage to his property. Because 

5 compensation was his motivation, he did not establish that 

6 his actions “transcend[ed] mere self-protection” or were 

7 “directed toward a governing institution” as required to 

8 demonstrate a political opinion. Id. (internal quotation 

9 marks omitted). The record reflects that Wu was targeted to 

10 cover up “isolated, aberrational acts of greed or 

11 malfeasance” not because he was viewed as challenging 

12 government institutions. Id. at 548. His failure to show 

13 that the police targeted him because of a political opinion

14 is dispositive of his petition for asylum and withholding of 

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

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

18 stays VACATED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

21 Clerk of Court