20

- 1567 Sun v. Garland BIA Douchy , IJ A 205 192 825 

### 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 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 Thu**  **rgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **0 t**  **h d**  **a y of**  **F e**  **b r**  **u a**  **r y**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**
  4 ** t** **h r**  **e e** 
**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  9 **EUNICE C. LEE ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **YONGCHENG SUN,** 14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 1567**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  

### Gary J. Yerman, Esq. , New York, 24 NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Ernesto H. 282 Molina, Jr. , Deputy Director ; 1 Nancy N. Safavi , Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, D C. 5
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED in part and GRANT ED in part

. 9

Petitioner Yongcheng Sun , a native and citizen of the 10
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a May 1, 2020 11

decision of the BIA affirming a July 16, 2018 decision of an 12
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 13
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14
Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Yongcheng Sun , No. A 205 192 15

825 (B.I.A. May 1, 2020 ), aff’g No. A 205 192 825 (Immig. Ct. 16

N.Y.C. July 1 6 , 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17
with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18

We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

. 19

See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec

. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 20
(2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well 21

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ( “the 22
administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 23
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 243 contrary”) ; Paloka v. Holder , 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) 1
(reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and 2
questions of law de novo). We deny the petition as to asylum 3
and withholding o f removal, but remand for further 4
consideration or explanation of Sun’s CAT claim. 5

**I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal**  6
An asylum applicant has the burden to show that he 7
suffered past persecution or has a well

- founded fear of future 8
persecution “on account of” a protected ground

. 8 U.S.C. 9

§§ 1101(a)(42) , 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). H ere, Sun sought to prove 10

that Chinese authorities targeted him for a perceived anti

11
corruption poli tical opinion

. Accordingly, Sun had the 12

burden to “provide some evidence , direct or circumstantial , ” 13
that his persecutors were motivated by his anti

- corruption 14

beliefs

. INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). 15

“ A political opinion is imputed when an individual has a 16
political opinion attributed to him

— correctly or incorrectly

— 17
on account of his beliefs, actions or associations.” Ruqiang 18

Yu v. Holder , 693 F.3d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation 19
marks omitted). Wh ile opposing corruption can be understood 20

as expressing a political opinion, it does not qualify as a 214 protected ground for the purposes of asylum and withholding 1

of removal when it amounts to “challeng [ing]

. . . isolated, 2

aberrational act s of greed o r mal feasance.” Yueqing Z h ang 3

v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 548 (2d Cir. 2005)

. 4
The agency reasonably found that Sun did not show that 5
police or local officials targeted him because of a political 6
opinion. Sun testified that he did not belong to any 7
political organization, movement, or labor union in China

. 8

He further testified that he was employed by a private company 9

and that his boss told him that he had police arrest and beat 10
him for reporting to local government officials that the 11

company was us ing subpar materials. According to Sun, h is 12

boss also told him that he had gone to school with the local 13
public security bureau chief and paid the police to protect 14
him from complaints like Sun’s

. Sun reported only one 15
instance of corruption , not continu ing issues and problems. 16
On this record, the agency reasonably found that the police 17

did not target Sun because of a political opinion , but rather 18

because his boss bribed them to do so . Having failed to 19
establish a nexus to a protected ground, Sun failed to meet 205 his burden for asylum and withholding of removal

. See 8 1
U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). 2

**II. CAT Relief**  3
To obtain CAT relief, an applicant must show that he 4
would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the 5
acquiescence of government officials. See 8 C.F.R. 6

§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a). “Torture is an extreme form 7

of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . specifically intended to 8
inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” 9

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2), (5). The agency must consider all 10
evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, 11
including evidence of past torture, the applicant’s abilit y 12
to relocate, and violations of human rights within the country 13

of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). 14
Sun stated that his police beatings began in August 2011 15
and ended in January 2012 when he arrived in the United 16

States. He was initially arrested an d beaten until he was 17

unconscious. After the officers release d him , they required 18

him to report to them on a weekly basis. D uring those 19
reports, officers yelled at him and slapped and kicked him 20
hard enough to cause swelling and bruising. Sun ’s wife and 216 parents told him that the police looked for him in July 2018, 1
a month before his hearing , and that officers beat his wife 2
when she complained about their harassment

. 3

We remand because the decision below is un clear as to 4
why the agency denied Su n’s CAT claim

. “ Despite our 5
generally deferential review of IJ and BIA opinions, we 6
require a certain minimum level of analysis . . . if judicial 7
review is to be meaningful

. ” Poradisova v. Gonzales , 420 8
F.3d 70, 7 7 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, t he agency has not provided 9
such analysis. The IJ apparently disbelieved Sun’s 10
allegation that the police continued to look for him, but 11

still found him credible. Moreover, t he IJ’s statement that 12
“there is nothing in the record to indicate that [the 13

gove rnment] would torture” Sun does not specify whether the 14
IJ found a lack of evidence that police would target Sun or 15

concluded that Sun’s treatment would not rise to the level of 16

torture. Because the agency did not provide sufficient 17
reasoning to allow for judicial review , we remand for further 18

review of the CAT claim

. See Poradisova , 420 F.3d at 77 19
(“Inadequate analysis or failure to consider important 20

evidence . . . [is] not excused by the fact that a 217 hypothetical adjudicator, applying the law correctly, might 1
also have denied the petition for asylum. ” ) (quotation marks 2
omitted). 3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4

DENIED in part as to asylum and withholding of removal and 5

GRANTED and REMANDED in part as to Sun’s CAT claim. Sun’s 6
motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot. 7

FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 9 Clerk of Court 10