17-687 

Jin v. Barr

BIA 

Vomacka, IJ 

A087 980 955

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 23rd 4 day of May, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 

9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 CHUNHUA JIN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-687 

17 NAC 

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

26 Attorney General; Terri J. 

27 Scadron, Assistant Director; 

28 Anthony W. Norwood, Senior 

29 Litigation Counsel, Office of 
2

1 Immigration Litigation, United 

2 States Department of Justice, 

3 Washington, DC. 

4 

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 petition for review 

8 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

9 Petitioner Chunhua Jin, a native and citizen of the 

10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 10, 

11 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a November 2, 2015, 

12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her 

13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

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

15 Jin, No. A 087 980 955 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 

16 980 955 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2015). We assume the 

17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

18 history in this case. 

19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

20 the IJ’s decisions as modified by the BIA, i.e., without 

21 reaching the IJ’s adverse credibility or corroboration 

22 rulings. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 

23 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA declined to 
3

1 reach the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we assume that 

2 Jin testified credibly. Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 

3 68 (2d Cir. 2011). 

4 I. Asylum & Withholding of Removal 

5 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Jin was 

6 required to “establish that race, religion, nationality, 

7 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion 

8 was or will be at least one central reason for” the claimed 

9 persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 

10 Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010) 

11 (extending the “one central reason” standard to withholding 

12 of removal). Jin argues that she was arrested based on her 

13 actual or imputed political opinion because of her role in 

14 organizing a shopkeepers’ protest against the municipal 

15 government’s rent increase. We agree that the agency should 

16 more fully consider the circumstances because, contrary to 

17 the agency’s analysis, Jin was protesting a municipal 

18 government policy, not the corruption of a government 

19 official. 

20 
4

1 We have cautioned against adopting an “impoverished view 

2 of what political opinions are, especially in a country 

3 . . . where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous 

4 hold.” Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017, 1030 (2d Cir. 1994). In 

5 Osorio, we concluded that a Guatemalan union leader, made out 

6 a political opinion claim: his union leadership and 

7 participation in strikes and protests “clearly evince[d] the 

8 political opinion that strikes by municipal workers should be 

9 legal and that workers should be given more rights,” and the 

10 Guatemalan government viewed the union’s activities as a 

11 political threat to the government’s policies. Id. at 1029-

12 31. 

13 Jin’s situation is distinguishable from the anti14 corruption cases that the agency relied on because she opposed 

15 a government policy rather than individual officials’ corrupt 

16 conduct. The municipal government’s rent increase for 

17 shopkeepers in the Hunchun Light Industry Market cannot be 

18 said to be an “isolated, aberrational act[] of greed or 

19 malfeasance” in the same way that an official’s unauthorized 

20 acts of extortion or embezzlement could be; the rent increase 
5

1 was the city’s official policy. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 

2 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 (2d Cir. 2005). 

3 Further, even assuming that the anti-corruption case law 

4 applies, the fact that Jin opposed the rent increase out of 

5 economic self-interest does not necessarily foreclose her 

6 political opinion claim. See id. (holding that “opposition 

7 to endemic corruption or extortion, no less than opposition 

8 to other government policies or practices, may have a 

9 political dimension when it transcends mere self-protection 

10 and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of 

11 the ruling regime.”). 

12 Jin’s opposition to the government’s rent increase 

13 transcended “mere self-protection” because she organized 

14 other shopkeepers and helped to lead a strike and protest 

15 with 70 to 80 participants that closed the market for eight 

16 hours. Additionally, Jin was arrested soon after the protest 

17 and the policewoman who interrogated her asked how she dare 

18 “go against the government,” a statement that implies a 

19 perceived political component to Jin’s actions. Although Jin 

20 organized only one protest against a specific government 

21 policy, the 2009 State Department country report in the record 
6

1 documents China’s harsh treatment of protesters (including 

2 those who protest economic and social policies) and supports 

3 Jin’s argument that her conduct would be viewed as a political 

4 challenge to the local government’s authority. 

5 Accordingly, we remand for further consideration of 

6 asylum and withholding of removal. We express no opinion on 

7 the issues of credibility and corroboration that the BIA 

8 declined to reach. 

9 II. CAT Relief 

10 To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant must show 

11 “that it is more likely than not” that she will be tortured 

12 in her country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 

13 Torture is defined as “any act by which severe pain or 

14 suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally 

15 inflicted on a person . . . by or at the instigation of or 

16 with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other 

17 person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. 

18 § 1208.18(a)(1). The agency must consider “all evidence 

19 relevant to the possibility of future torture,” including: 

20 “[e]vidence of past torture,” evidence regarding the 

21 possibility of internal relocation, “[e]vidence of gross, 
7

1 flagrant, or mass violations of human rights,” and “[o]ther 

2 relevant information regarding conditions in the country of 

3 removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i)-(iv). However, 

4 evidence of past torture does not create a presumption that 

5 an applicant will be tortured in the future. Ramsameachire 

6 v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 185 (2d Cir. 2004). 

7 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 

8 that Jin did not establish a likelihood of torture. Although 

9 Jin submitted a 2010 letter from her mother stating that the 

10 police were looking for her, she has not provided an updated 

11 letter or any other evidence to show that the police are still 

12 looking for her. The agency also reasonably concluded that 

13 Jin’s ability to renew her passport and depart from China on 

14 her passport undermined her CAT claim, given an Australian 

15 government report reflecting that Chinese exit procedures 

16 generally prevent citizens with criminal convictions or 

17 ongoing criminal proceedings from obtaining passports or 

18 leaving the country. 

19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

20 GRANTED in part and REMANDED to the BIA as to asylum and 
8

1 withholding of removal and DENIED in remaining part as to CAT 

2 relief. 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

5 Clerk of Court