09 -4 88 4- ag

Zhu v. Holder BIA Ho lmes -S immons,IJ A096 395 095 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RU LI NG S BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED O N ORA FT ERJAN UARY 1 , 20 07 , IS P ERMI TT ED AND I S GO VE RN ED B Y FE DE RA L RU LE 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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 29 day of September, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 11 Circuit Judges . 12

_______________________________________ 13 14 JIAN CHAO ZHU, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 v. 09-4884-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22

_______________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Madeo & Fasano, 25 New York, New York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Allison2 1 Frayer, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D.C. 5 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. 1 0 Jian Chao Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 1 Republic of China, seeks review of a October 27, 2009, order 1 2 of the BIA affirming the January 4, 2008, decision of 1 3 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, which 1 4 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 1 5 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 16 re Jian Chao Zhu , No. A096 395 095 (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 2009), 17 aff’gNo. A096 395 095 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 4, 2008). 1 8 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 1 9 and procedural history in this case. 2 0 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 1 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 2 The 2 3 applicable standards of review are well-established. 24 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 2 5 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).3 1 The agency reasonably found that Zhu failed to 2 establish that he was persecuted on account of his political 3 opinion. In addition to showing past persecution or a well4 founded fear of future persecution, asylum eligibility 5 requires that the persecution be on account of the 6 applicant’s race, religion, nationality, political opinion, 7 or membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1101(a)(42). To establish persecution based on a 9 political opinion, the “applicant must . . . show, through 1 0 direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor’s 1 1 motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s political 1 2 belief.” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005). 1 3 We have found that “opposition to endemic 1 4 corruption or extortion, no less than opposition to other 1 5 government practices or policies, may have a political 1 6 dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and 1 7 represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the 1 8 ruling regime.” Id. at 547-48. Zhu has made no such showing. 19 2 0 The agency reasonably found that Zhu’s difficulties 2 1 with Don Cun Qi were no more than a personal dispute resulting from Qi’s desire to date Zhu’s girlfriend. T 2 2 he4 1 record supports a finding that Qi was motivated by Zhu’s 2 personal circumstances, not his political opinion, as Zhu 3 testified that Qi told him to leave his girlfriend. Thus, 4 the agency reasonably found that Zhu’s difficulties were no 5 more than a personal dispute because Qi wanted to date Zhu’s girlfriend 6 . See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Yueqing Zhang , 426 F.3d at 545. 7 To the extent Zhu claims that he has a 8 well-founded fear of persecution based on his “complaint 9 letter” challenging the charges against him, he did not 1 0 provide a copy of the letter to the Court or testify about 1 1 the contents of the letter. Moreover, he testified that he 1 2 received no response to his letter and nothing in the record 1 3 indicates that any government officials are looking for him. 1 4 Accordingly, the IJ reasonably found that Zhu’s letter did 1 5 not constitute opposition to government corruption because 1 6 he did not establish that his letter “transcend[ed] mere 1 7 self-protection.” See id. at 547-48 (“[T]he important 1 8 questions for determining the nature of the applicant’s 1 9 opposition are whether the applicant’s actions were directed 2 0 toward a governing institution, or only against individuals 2 1 whose corruption was aberrational”)(internal quotations omitted). 225 1 To the extent Zhu argues that he fears persecution for 2 his failure to return to court after his release from 3 detention, it is well-established that petitioners are not 4 entitled to relief for prosecution they would face for 5 violating a generally applicable criminal law. See Qun Yang 6 v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 163 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) (per 7 curiam); see also Saleh v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 962 F.2d 8 234, 239 (2d Cir. 1992). Moreover, Zhu has not presented 9 any evidence that officials are still searching for him. 10 See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 1 1 2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if 1 2 it lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best”). 13 1 4 Because the agency reasonably found that Zhu failed to 1 5 show a nexus to a protected ground, it properly denied his 1 6 application for asylum and withholding of removal. 17 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Yueqing 18 Zhang , 426 F.3d at 545; see also Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) 1 9 . Zhu does not challenge the 2 0 agency’s denial of CAT relief.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 21 2 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 2 3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.6 1 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 2 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 3 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 4 FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7 8