19-105

Liu v. Garland

BIA

Sponzo, IJ

A206 065 948

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 10th day of May, two thousand twenty-one.

PRESENT:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

DENNY CHIN,

MICHAEL H. PARK,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

JIBIN LIU,

Petitioner,

v. 19-105

NAC

MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, Esq., New York, 

 NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General; John 

S. Hogan, Assistant Director; 

Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, 

Office of Immigration Litigation,
2

United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC.

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 Jibin Liu, a native and citizen of the 

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 17, 

2018 decision of the BIA affirming a November 8, 2017 decision 

of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). In re Jibin Liu, No. A206 065 948 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 

2018), aff’g No. A206 065 948 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 8, 

2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts and procedural history.

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

“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 

Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 

applicable 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). The only issue before us is whether 

Liu established his eligibility for asylum and withholding of 

removal based on his claim that he was detained and beaten 
3

for gathering with a group at a government office in China to 

seek an explanation for the government’s failure to fully 

compensate them for a broken land lease.

To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 

removal, “the 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 persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Matter of 

C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010). “In order 

to establish persecution on account of political 

opinion . . . , an asylum applicant must show . . . , through 

direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor’s 

motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s political 

belief.” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]pposition 

to endemic corruption or extortion . . . [and] opposition to 

other government practices or policies[] may have a political 

dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and 

represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the 

ruling regime.” Id. at 547–48. “Punishment for violation 

of a generally applicable criminal law is not persecution,” 

Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 962 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir. 
4

1992), but “prosecution that is pretext for political 

persecution is not on account of law enforcement,” Jin Jin 

Long v. Holder, 620 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2010).

The agency did not err in concluding that Liu faced 

prosecution in China rather than persecution on account of an 

anti-corruption political opinion. Liu testified that he and 

30 others went to the village management committee for an 

explanation and compensation rather than to oppose endemic 

corruption or government practices. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 

F.3d at 547. And Liu did not provide any testimony from 

which to infer that committee members or the police believed 

he and his fellow villagers were at the government offices 

for any reason other than to protect their own interests. 

See id. at 547–48. Liu’s evidence further supports the 

agency’s conclusion that he was subject to prosecution,

despite the excessive force used, because it shows that police 

told the group of 30 to disperse, detained him and others 

from the group, charged him with violation of a generally 

applicable public security management law, punished him with 

administrative detention and a fine, and provided him an 

opportunity to appeal (which he did not do). See id. at 545 

(“[A]n applicant . . . must establish a fear of reprisal that 

is different in kind from a desire to avoid the exactions 
5

(however harsh) that a foreign government may place upon its 

citizens.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Vumi 

v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 150, 157–58 (2d Cir. 2007) (providing 

factors to consider in determining whether prosecution is a 

pretext for political persecution).

Because Liu failed to show that he was targeted on 

account of an anti-corruption political opinion, real or 

imputed, and because he was subjected to prosecution under a 

generally applicable statute, the agency did not err in 

denying asylum and withholding of removal for failure to show 

a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected 

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

Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 545, 547–48; Saleh, 962 F.2d at 

239.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

stays VACATED.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk