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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

12th 4 day of October , two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 DENNIS JACOBS, 

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 BINGYAO SUN, 

13 Petitioner, 

14 

15 v. 16-1818 

16 NAC 

17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

19 Respondent. 

20 _____________________________________ 

21 

22 FOR PETITIONER: Hui Chen, Law Offices of Hui Chen & 

23 Associates, P.C., Flushing, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

26 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, 

27 Assistant Director; Margot L. 

28 Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of 

29 Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Bingyao Sun, a native and citizen of the 

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 10, 2016, 

7 decision of the BIA affirming a February 25, 2015, decision of 

8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sun’s application for 

9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bingyao Sun, No. A205 240 764 

11 (B.I.A. May 10, 2016), aff’g No. A205 240 764 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 

12 City Feb. 25, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 

15 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA (i.e., minus the adverse 

16 credibility determination and alternative burden denial on 

17 which the BIA declined to rely). See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 

18 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 

19 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 

20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 

21 Cir. 2009). 

22 
3

1 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must 

2 establish that her past persecution or fear of future 

3 persecution is on account of her race, religion, nationality, 

4 political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. 

5 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Castro v. Holder, 

6 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining that the burden is 

7 on the alien “to establish a sufficiently strong nexus to . . 

8 . [a] protected ground”). “The protected ground need not be 

9 the sole motive,” Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 

10 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), and an individual 

11 persecuted for multiple reasons is a refugee as long as “one 

12 central reason” is a protected ground, 8 U.S.C. § 

13 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 

14 “To establish persecution on account of a political 

15 opinion, an . . . applicant must show that the persecution arises 

16 from his or her own actual or imputed political opinion.” 

17 Koudriachova v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2007). 

18 “[O]pposition to endemic corruption . . . may have a political 

19 dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and 

20 represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the 

21 ruling regime.” Castro, 597 F.3d at 100-01 (quoting Yueqing

22 Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 (2d Cir. 2005)). “In 
4

1 considering whether opposition to corruption constitutes a 

2 political opinion, the important questions . . . are whether 

3 the applicant’s actions were directed toward a governing 

4 institution, or only against individuals whose corruption was 

5 aberrational, and whether the persecutor was attempting to 

6 suppress a challenge to the governing institution, as opposed 

7 to isolated, aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance.” Id.

8 at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

9 Here, the agency reasonably denied asylum and withholding 

10 of removal on the ground that Sun’s complaints about her sexual 

11 assault were self-interested and did not reflect an 

12 anticorruption political opinion. See id. at 100-01; Siewe v. 

13 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are 

14 two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice 

15 between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (internal quotation 

16 marks omitted)). Sun testified that she pursued her complaints 

17 because she wanted to hold her employer and the government 

18 official who had assaulted her accountable, not because she 

19 wished to expose corruption. She did not organize others to 

20 take a stand against official corruption or “under[take] to 

21 vindicate the rights of numerous other persons.” See Yueqing 

22 Zhang, 426 F.3d at 547 (finding nexus to political opinion where 
5

1 petitioner organized other business owners to “publicize and 

2 criticize endemic corruption extending beyond his own case”); 

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

4 nexus where petitioner intervened on behalf of fellow workers 

5 to protest state-sponsored wage theft). And there is no 

6 evidence that Sun took any public stance against 

7 corruption—only that she filed complaints regarding her own 

8 assault. The agency therefore did not err in finding that Sun 

9 was opposing an “isolated, aberrational act[]” of violence 

10 rather than “the legitimacy or authority of the ruling regime.” 

11 See Castro, 597 F.3d at 100-01; Siewe, 480 F.3d at 167. 

12 Sun also argues that she established persecution or a 

13 well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an imputed 

14 political opinion; however, she fails to identify any record 

15 evidence suggesting that a political opinion was imputed to her. 

16 The agency also reasonably determined that the reason she was 

17 threatened with arrest for illegally spreading Christianity was 

18 to suppress her complaints against the government official, not 

19 because of any actual or imputed religious beliefs. See 

20 Castro, 597 F.3d at 100-01; Siewe, 480 F.3d at 167. Sun’s own 

21 statement is that the proselytizing charge was threatened to 

22 obtain her silence after she made a report to the Bureau for 
6

1 Letters and Calls. Finally, the agency reasonably found that 

2 the closure of her mother’s seafood business was not related 

3 to Sun’s complaints: Sun admitted that she did not know why the 

4 store was shut down and that she had no evidence that it was 

5 closed by the government official who had assaulted her. 

6 Because Sun failed to demonstrate that her actions 

7 “transcend[ed] mere self-protection” and expressed an 

8 anticorruption political opinion, she could not show that a 

9 protected ground was at least “one central reason” for her 

10 claimed past persecution or fear of future persecution, and the 

11 agency did not err in denying asylum and withholding of removal 

12 on this ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Castro, 597 F.3d 

13 at 100-01. 

14 Sun also argues that the agency erred in denying CAT relief. 

15 For CAT relief, Sun was required to demonstrate that she likely 

16 will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of Chinese 

17 government officials. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17; 

18 Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2004). Sun 

19 argues that she satisfied her burden because the Chinese 

20 government abuses the legal system to target and punish 

21 political dissidents. As discussed above, however, Sun failed 

22 to establish that she would be viewed as a political dissident 
7

1 opposing government corruption. Her oppositional activities 

2 were limited to filing complaints about her own sexual assault, 

3 and there is no evidence that the government official or police 

4 officers perceived her to be threatening to expose systematic 

5 corruption in the Chinese government. Further, the agency 

6 reasonably observed that Sun suffered no harm in the 2.5 months 

7 she stayed in China after reporting her assault. The agency 

8 did not err in denying CAT relief. 

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

11 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

12 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

13 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

14 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

15 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

16 34.1(b). 

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk