20-1567

Sun v. Garland

BIA

Douchy, IJ

A205 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.

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 10th 4 day of February, two thousand twenty5 three.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

10 EUNICE C. LEE,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 YONGCHENG SUN,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 20-1567

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, 

25 NY.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant

28 Attorney General; Ernesto H. 
2

1 Molina, Jr., Deputy Director; 

2 Nancy N. Safavi, Trial Attorney, 

3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

4 United States Department of 

5 Justice, Washington, DC.

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 in part and GRANTED in part.

10 Petitioner Yongcheng Sun, a native and citizen of the 

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2020

12 decision of the BIA affirming a July 16, 2018 decision of an 

13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 

14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yongcheng Sun, No. A 205 192 

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

17 N.Y.C. July 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

18 with the underlying facts and procedural history.

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

20 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 

21 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well 

22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the 

23 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

24 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 
3

1 contrary”); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) 

2 (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and 

3 questions of law de novo). We deny the petition as to asylum 

4 and withholding of removal, but remand for further 

5 consideration or explanation of Sun’s CAT claim.

6 I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal

7 An asylum applicant has the burden to show that he 

8 suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future 

9 persecution “on account of” a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. 

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

11 that Chinese authorities targeted him for a perceived anti12 corruption political opinion. Accordingly, Sun had the 

13 burden to “provide some evidence, direct or circumstantial,” 

14 that his persecutors were motivated by his anti-corruption 

15 beliefs. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). 

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

17 political opinion attributed to him—correctly or incorrectly—

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

19 Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation 

20 marks omitted). While opposing corruption can be understood

21 as expressing a political opinion, it does not qualify as a 
4

1 protected ground for the purposes of asylum and withholding 

2 of removal when it amounts to “challeng[ing] . . . isolated, 

3 aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance.” Yueqing Zhang 

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

5 The agency reasonably found that Sun did not show that 

6 police or local officials targeted him because of a political 

7 opinion. Sun testified that he did not belong to any 

8 political organization, movement, or labor union in China. 

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

10 and that his boss told him that he had police arrest and beat 

11 him for reporting to local government officials that the 

12 company was using subpar materials. According to Sun, his 

13 boss also told him that he had gone to school with the local 

14 public security bureau chief and paid the police to protect 

15 him from complaints like Sun’s. Sun reported only one 

16 instance of corruption, not continuing issues and problems. 

17 On this record, the agency reasonably found that the police 

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

19 because his boss bribed them to do so. Having failed to 

20 establish a nexus to a protected ground, Sun failed to meet 
5

1 his burden for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 

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

3 II. CAT Relief

4 To obtain CAT relief, an applicant must show that he 

5 would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the 

6 acquiescence of government officials. See 8 C.F.R. 

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

8 of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . specifically intended to 

9 inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” 

10 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2), (5). The agency must consider all 

11 evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, 

12 including evidence of past torture, the applicant’s ability 

13 to relocate, and violations of human rights within the country 

14 of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). 

15 Sun stated that his police beatings began in August 2011 

16 and ended in January 2012 when he arrived in the United 

17 States. He was initially arrested and beaten until he was 

18 unconscious. After the officers released him, they required 

19 him to report to them on a weekly basis. During those 

20 reports, officers yelled at him and slapped and kicked him 

21 hard enough to cause swelling and bruising. Sun’s wife and 
6

1 parents told him that the police looked for him in July 2018, 

2 a month before his hearing, and that officers beat his wife 

3 when she complained about their harassment. 

4 We remand because the decision below is unclear as to 

5 why the agency denied Sun’s CAT claim. “Despite our 

6 generally deferential review of IJ and BIA opinions, we 

7 require a certain minimum level of analysis . . . if judicial 

8 review is to be meaningful.” Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 

9 F.3d 70, 77 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, the agency has not provided 

10 such analysis. The IJ apparently disbelieved Sun’s 

11 allegation that the police continued to look for him, but 

12 still found him credible. Moreover, the IJ’s statement that 

13 “there is nothing in the record to indicate that [the 

14 government] would torture” Sun does not specify whether the 

15 IJ found a lack of evidence that police would target Sun or 

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

17 torture. Because the agency did not provide sufficient 

18 reasoning to allow for judicial review, we remand for further 

19 review of the CAT claim. See Poradisova, 420 F.3d at 77 

20 (“Inadequate analysis or failure to consider important 

21 evidence . . . [is] not excused by the fact that a 
7

1 hypothetical adjudicator, applying the law correctly, might 

2 also have denied the petition for asylum.”) (quotation marks 

3 omitted).

4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

6 GRANTED and REMANDED in part as to Sun’s CAT claim. Sun’s 

7 motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.

8 FOR THE COURT: 

9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

10 Clerk of Court