Case Name: Oleksii ONISHCHENKO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-16
Citations: 658 F. App'x 18
Docket Number: 15-1011
Parties: Oleksii ONISHCHENKO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 658
Pages: 18–20

Head Matter:
Oleksii ONISHCHENKO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
15-1011
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
August 16, 2016
For Petitioner: Daniel D. Estrin, Sirota & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y.
For Respondent: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel; Richard Zanfardino, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Oleksii Onishchenko, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Ukraine, seeks review of a March 13, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a January 30, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Onishchenko's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Oleksii Onishchenko, Snizhana Onishchenko, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], 205 427 797 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2015), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], 205 427 797 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2013). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We have reviewed the IJ's decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the basis for denying relief—credibility—that the BIA declined to consider. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 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). Because the BIA declined to reach the IJ's adverse credibility finding, we assume Onishchenko testified credibly. Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2011).
As an initial matter, the Government is correct that Onishchenko has waived any challenge to the agency's denial of CAT relief or its conclusion he was not persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group. Onishchenko's brief raises only a general challenge to the denial of CAT relief, and he makes no argument concerning the viability of his particular social group. Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998). Therefore, we review only the denials of asylum and withholding of removal.
For asylum and withholding of removal, an "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" the claimed persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). Onish-chenko argues that he was persecuted based on his political opposition to the government's failure to fight extortion and racketeering. He bases this argument on his participation in a group of business owners protesting the government's failure to stop racketeering. "Although opposition to corruption for purely self-interested reasons may lack a political motivation, 'opposition to endemic corruption . may have a political dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the ruling regime.' " Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 547-48 (2d Cir. 2005)). "In considering whether opposition to corruption constitutes a political opinion, the important questions . are whether the applicant's actions were directed toward á governing institution, or only against individuals whose corruption was aberrational, and whether the persecutor was attempting to suppress a challenge to the governing institution, as opposed to -isolated, aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance," Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The agency reasonably concluded that Onishchenko opposed the government's failure to fight racketeering for self-interested reasons,' rather than due to an anti-corruption political opinion. Onish-chenko did not claim to have taken any actions to oppose government corruption prior to being extorted himself. He testified that, after the anonymous callers began threatening him, he was approached by a fellow business owner and asked to join a protest group because other business.owners were being threatened. Onish-chenko stated that the purpose of the group was to protect businessmen. Considering this testimony, the agency reasonably concluded that Onishchenko's activity was not "a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the ruling regime," Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 548, but rather an attempt to protect himself from extortion. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the anonymous callers (or the government) sought to persecute Onish-chenko because of his political beliefs. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Instead, Onishchenko consistently testified that the callers wanted his business.
Because the agency's conclusion that Onishchenko's past harm, and fear of future harm, bore no nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of asylum and withholding of removal, we decline to review the agency's ruling that Onishchenko did not suffer harm rising to the level of persecution.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).