16-1818 Sun v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 240 764 

### 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**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **12 th** **day of October , two thousand seventeen.**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 **BINGYAO SUN,** 12 Petitioner **,** 13 14 **v. 16-1818** 15 **NAC** 16 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED** 17 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 18 Respondent **.** 19

**_____________________________________** 20 21 **FOR PETITIONER:** Hui Chen, Law Offices of Hui Chen & 22 Associates, P.C., Flushing, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, 26 Assistant Director; Margot L. 27 Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, DC. 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Bingyao Sun, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 10, 2016, 6 decision of the BIA affirming a February 25, 2015, decision of 7 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sun’s application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 9 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bingyao Sun, No. A205 240 764 10 (B.I.A. May 10, 2016), aff’gNo. A205 240 764 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 11 City Feb. 25, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 12 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 14 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA (i.e., minus the adverse 15 credibility determination and alternative burden denial on 16 which the BIA declined to rely). See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 17 of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 20 Cir. 2009). 21
223 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must 1 establish that her past persecution or fear of future 2 persecution is on account ofher race, religion, nationality, 3 political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. 4 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Castro v. Holder , 5 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining that the burden is 6 on the alien “to establish a sufficiently strong nexus to . . 7 . [a] protected ground”). “The protected ground need not be 8 the sole motive,” Aliyev v. Mukasey , 549 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 9 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), and an individual 10 persecuted for multiple reasons is a refugee as long as “one 11 central reason” is a protected ground, 8 U.S.C. § 12 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 13 “To establish persecution on account of a political 14 opinion, an . . . applicant must show that the persecution arises 15 from his or her own actual or imputed political opinion.” 16 Koudriachova v. Gonzales , 490 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2007). 17 “[O]pposition to endemic corruption . . . may have a political 18 dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and 19 represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the 20 ruling regime.” Castro , 597 F.3d at 100-01 (quoting Yueqing 21 Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 (2d Cir. 2005)). “In 224 considering whether opposition to corruption constitutes a 1 political opinion, the important questions . . . are whether 2 the applicant’s actions were directed toward a governing 3 institution, or only against individuals whose corruption was 4 aberrational, and whether the persecutor was attempting to 5 suppress a challenge to the governing institution, as opposed 6 to isolated, aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance.” Id. 7 at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 Here, the agency reasonably denied asylum and withholding 9 of removal on the ground that Sun’s complaints about her sexual 10 assault were self-interested and did not reflect an 11 anticorruption political opinion. See id. at 100-01; Siewe v. 12 Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are 13 two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice 14 between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (internal quotation 15 marks omitted)). Sun testified that she pursued her complaints 16 because she wanted to hold her employer and the government 17 official who had assaulted her accountable, not because she 18 wished to expose corruption. She did not organize others to 19 take a stand against official corruption or “under[take] to 20 vindicate the rights of numerous other persons.” See Yueqing 21 Zhang , 426 F.3d at 547 (finding nexus to political opinion where 225 petitioner organized other business owners to “publicize and 1 criticize endemic corruption extending beyond his own case”); 2 Ruqiang Yu v. Holder , 693 F.3d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding 3 nexus where petitioner intervened on behalf of fellow workers 4 to protest state-sponsored wage theft). And there is no 5 evidence that Sun took any public stance against 6 corruption—only that she filed complaints regarding her own 7 assault. The agency therefore did not err in finding that Sun 8 was opposing an “isolated, aberrational act[]” of violence 9 rather than “the legitimacy or authority of the ruling regime.” 10
See Castro , 597 F.3d at 100-01; Siewe , 480 F.3d at 167. 11 Sun also argues that she established persecution or a 12 well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an imputed 13 political opinion; however, she fails to identify any record 14 evidence suggesting that a political opinion was imputed to her. 15 The agency also reasonably determined that the reason she was 16 threatened with arrest for illegally spreading Christianity was 17 to suppress her complaints against the government official, not 18 because of any actual or imputed religious beliefs. See 19
Castro , 597 F.3d at 100-01; Siewe , 480 F.3d at 167. Sun’s own 20 statement is that the proselytizing charge was threatened to 21 obtain her silence after she made a report to the Bureau for 226 Letters and Calls. Finally, the agency reasonably found that 1 the closure of her mother’s seafood business was not related 2 to Sun’s complaints: Sun admitted that she did not know why the 3 store was shut down and that she had no evidence that it was 4 closed by the government official who had assaulted her. 5 Because Sun failed to demonstrate that her actions 6 “transcend[ed] mere self-protection” and expressed an 7 anticorruption political opinion, she could not show that a 8 protected ground was at least “one central reason” for her 9 claimed past persecution or fear of future persecution, and the 10 agency did not err in denying asylum and withholding of removal 11 on this ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Castro , 597 F.3d 12 at 100-01. 13
Sun also argues that the agency erred in denying CAT relief. 14 For CAT relief, Sun was required to demonstrate that she likely 15 will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of Chinese 16 government officials. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17; 17 Khouzam v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 161, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2004). Sun 18 argues that she satisfied her burden because the Chinese 19 government abuses the legal system to target and punish 20 political dissidents. As discussed above, however, Sun failed 21 to establish that she would be viewed as a political dissident 227 opposing government corruption. Her oppositional activities 1 were limited to filing complaints about her own sexual assault, 2 and there is no evidence that the government official or police 3 officers perceived her to be threatening to expose systematic 4 corruption in the Chinese government. Further, the agency 5 reasonably observed that Sun suffered no harm in the 2.5 months 6 she stayed in China after reporting her assault. The agency 7 did not err in denying CAT relief. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 15 34.1(b). 16
FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18