15-1011 

Onishchenko v. Lynch 

BIA 

Hom, IJ 

A205 427 796 

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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

16th day of August, two thousand sixteen. 

PRESENT: 

ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 

 Chief Judge, 

JON O. NEWMAN, 

PETER W. HALL,

 Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

OLEKSII ONISHCHENKO, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 15-1011 

 NAC 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Daniel D. Estrin, Sirota & 

Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General; Anthony 
2

W. Norwood, Senior Litigation 

Counsel; Richard Zanfardino, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C. 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

DENIED. 

 Petitioner Oleksii Onishchenko, a native of the former 

Soviet Union and a citizen of Ukraine, seeks review of a March 

13, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a January 30, 2013, 

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

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Oleksii 

Onishchenko, Snizhana Onishchenko, Nos. A205 427 796, 205 427 

797 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2015), aff’g Nos. A205 427 796, 205 427 

797 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2013). We assume the 

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

history in this case. 

 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, 

i.e., minus the basis for denying relief—credibility—that the 

BIA declined to consider. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 
3

standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 

Cir. 2009). Because the BIA declined to reach the IJ’s adverse 

credibility finding, we assume Onishchenko testified credibly. 

Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2011). 

 As an initial matter, the Government is correct that 

Onishchenko has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of 

CAT relief or its conclusion he was not persecuted based on his 

membership in a particular social group. Onishchenko’s brief 

raises only a general challenge to the denial of CAT relief, 

and he makes no argument concerning the viability of his 

particular social group. Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 

117 (2d Cir. 1998). Therefore, we review only the denials of 

asylum and withholding of removal. 

 For asylum and withholding of removal, an “applicant must 

establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion was or will be 

at least one central reason for” the claimed persecution. 8 

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

argues that he was persecuted based on his political opposition 

to the government’s failure to fight extortion and 

racketeering. He bases this argument on his participation in 
4

a group of business owners protesting the government’s failure 

to stop racketeering. “Although opposition to corruption for 

purely self-interested reasons may lack a political motivation, 

‘opposition to endemic corruption . . . may have a political 

dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and 

represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the 

ruling regime.’” Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 

2010) (quoting Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 

(2d Cir. 2005)). “In considering whether opposition to 

corruption constitutes a political opinion, the important 

questions . . . are whether the applicant’s actions were 

directed toward a governing institution, or only against 

individuals whose corruption was aberrational, and whether the 

persecutor was attempting to suppress a challenge to the 

governing institution, as opposed to isolated, aberrational 

acts of greed or malfeasance.” Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

 The agency reasonably concluded that Onishchenko opposed 

the government’s failure to fight racketeering for 

self-interested reasons, rather than due to an anti-corruption 

political opinion. Onishchenko did not claim to have taken any 

actions to oppose government corruption prior to being extorted 
5

himself. He testified that, after the anonymous callers began 

threatening him, he was approached by a fellow business owner 

and asked to join a protest group because other business owners 

were being threatened. Onishchenko stated that the purpose of 

the group was to protect businessmen. Considering this 

testimony, the agency reasonably concluded that Onishchenko’s 

activity was not “a challenge to the legitimacy or authority 

of the ruling regime,” Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548, but rather 

an attempt to protect himself from extortion. Moreover, there 

is no evidence in the record that the anonymous callers (or the 

government) sought to persecute Onishchenko because of his 

political beliefs. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 

(1992). Instead, Onishchenko consistently testified that the 

callers wanted his business. 

 Because the agency’s conclusion that Onishchenko’s past 

harm, and fear of future harm, bore no nexus to a protected 

ground is dispositive of asylum and withholding of removal, we 

decline to review the agency’s ruling that Onishchenko did not 

suffer harm rising to the level of persecution. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 
6

and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

34.1(b). 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk