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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 23 rd**  **day of May, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **CHUNHUA JIN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 17-687** 16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Terri J. 26 Scadron, Assistant Director; 27 Anthony W. Norwood, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel, Office of 292 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 8 Petitioner Chunhua Jin, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 10, 10 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a November 2, 2015, 11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her 12 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 13 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chunhua 14 Jin, No. A 087 980 955 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 15

980 955 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2015). We assume the 16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 17 history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 the IJ’s decisions as modified by the BIA, i.e., without 20 reaching the IJ’s adverse credibility or corroboration 21 rulings. S ee Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 22 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA declined to 233 reach the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we assume that 1 Jin testified credibly. Mei Fun Wong v. Holder , 633 F.3d 64, 2 68 (2d Cir. 2011). 3

**I. Asylum & Withholding of Removal**  4 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Jin was 5 required to “establish that race, religion, nationality, 6 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion 7 was or will be at least one central reason for” the claimed 8 persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 9

Matter of C-T-L- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010) 10 (extending the “one central reason” standard to withholding 11 of removal). Jin argues that she was arrested based on her 12 actual or imputed political opinion because of her role in 13 organizing a shopkeepers’ protest against the municipal 14 government’s rent increase. We agree that the agency should 15 more fully consider the circumstances because, contrary to 16 the agency’s analysis, Jin was protesting a municipal 17 government policy, not the corruption of a government 18 official. 19

204 We have cautioned against adopting an “impoverished view 1 of what political opinions are, especially in a country 2 . . . where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous 3

hold.” Osorio v. INS , 18 F.3d 1017, 1030 (2d Cir. 1994). In 4 Osorio , we concluded that a Guatemalan union leader, made out 5 a political opinion claim: his union leadership and 6 participation in strikes and protests “clearly evince[d] the 7 political opinion that strikes by municipal workers should be 8 legal and that workers should be given more rights,” and the 9 Guatemalan government viewed the union’s activities as a 10 political threat to the government’s policies. Id. at 1029- 11

31. 12 Jin’s situation is distinguishable from the anti13 corruption cases that the agency relied on because she opposed 14 a government policy rather than individual officials’ corrupt 15 conduct. The municipal government’s rent increase for 16 shopkeepers in the Hunchun Light Industry Market cannot be 17 said to be an “isolated, aberrational act[] of greed or 18 malfeasance” in the same way that an official’s unauthorized 19 acts of extortion or embezzlement cou ld be; the rent increase 205 was the city’s official policy. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 1 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 Further, even assuming that the anti-corruption case law 3 applies, the fact that Jin opposed the rent increase out of 4 economic self-interest does not necessarily foreclose her 5 political opinion claim. See id. (holding that “opposition 6 to endemic corruption or extortion, no less than opposition 7 to other government policies or practices, may have a 8 political dimension when it transcends mere self-protection 9 and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of 10 the ruling regime.”). 11 Jin’s opposition to the g overnment’s rent increase 12 transcended “mere self-protection” because she organized 13 other shopkeepers and helped to lead a strike and protest 14 with 70 to 80 participants that closed the market for eight 15 hours. Additionally, Jin was arrested soon after the protest 16 and the policewoman who interrogated her asked how she dare 17 “go against the government,” a statement that implies a 18 perceived political component to Jin’s actions. Although Jin 19 organized only one protest against a specific government 20 policy, the 2009 State Department country report in the record 216 documents China’s harsh treatment of protesters (including 1 those who protest economic and social policies) and supports 2 Jin’s argument that her conduct would be viewed as a political 3 challenge to the local government’s authority. 4 Accordingly, we remand for further consideration of 5 asylum and withholding of removal. We express no opinion on 6 the issues of credibility and corroboration that the BIA 7 declined to reach. 8

**II. CAT Relief**  9 To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant must show 10 “that it is more likely than not” that she will be tortured 11 in her country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 12 Torture is defined as “any act by which severe pain or 13 suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally 14 inflicted on a person . . . by or at the instigation of or 15 with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other 16 person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. 17 § 1208.18(a)(1). The agency must consider “all evidence 18 relevant to the possibility of future torture,” including: 19 “[e]vidence of past torture,” evidence regarding the 20 possibility of internal relocation, “[e]vidence of gross, 217 flagrant, or mass violations of human rights,” and “[o]ther 1 relevant information regarding conditions in the country of 2 removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i)-(iv). However, 3 evidence of past torture does not create a presumption that 4 an applicant will be tortured in the future. Ramsameachire 5

v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 185 (2d Cir. 2004). 6 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 7 that Jin did not establish a likelihood of torture. Although 8 Jin submitted a 2010 letter from her mother stating that the 9 police were looking for her, she has not provided an updated 10 letter or any other evidence to show that the police are still 11 looking for her. The agency also reasonably concluded that 12 Jin’s ability to renew her passport and depart from China on 13 her passport undermined her CAT claim, given an Australian 14 government report reflecting that Chinese exit procedures 15 generally prevent citizens with criminal convictions or 16 ongoing criminal proceedings from obtaining passports or 17 leaving the country. 18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 19 GRANTED in part and REMANDED to the BIA as to asylum and 208 withholding of removal and DENIED in remaining part as to CAT 1 relief. 2

FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 4 Clerk of Court 5