Court Opinion

ID: 9369989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 16:00:33.948348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.466849
License: Public Domain

20-1567
     Sun v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                      Douchy, IJ
                                                                    A205 192 825
                           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 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
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 10th day of February, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 9            WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
10            EUNICE C. LEE,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   YONGCHENG SUN,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                    v.                                  20-1567
18                                                        NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                  Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York,
25                                    NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                  Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                    Attorney General; Ernesto H.
 1                                    Molina, Jr., Deputy Director;
 2                                    Nancy N. Safavi, Trial Attorney,
 3                                    Office of Immigration Litigation,
 4                                    United States Department of
 5                                    Justice, Washington, DC.

 6         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

9    is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

10         Petitioner Yongcheng Sun, a native and citizen of the

11   People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2020

12   decision of the BIA affirming a July 16, 2018 decision of an

13   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,

14   withholding    of   removal,      and   relief   under   the   Convention

15   Against Torture (“CAT”).          In re Yongcheng Sun, No. A 205 192

16   825 (B.I.A. May 1, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 192 825 (Immig. Ct.

17   N.Y.C. July 16, 2018).           We assume the parties’ familiarity

18   with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19         We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions.

20   See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528

21   (2d   Cir.    2006).       The    standards      of   review   are    well

22   established.         See    8     U.S.C.    §    1252(b)(4)(B)       (“the

23   administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

24   reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
                                   2
 1   contrary”); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014)

2    (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and

3    questions of law de novo).     We deny the petition as to asylum

4    and   withholding    of   removal,   but   remand   for    further

5    consideration or explanation of Sun’s CAT claim.

 6         I.   Asylum and Withholding of Removal

7          An asylum applicant has the burden to show that he

8    suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future

9    persecution “on account of” a protected ground.           8 U.S.C.

10   §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).     Here, Sun sought to prove

11   that Chinese authorities targeted him for a perceived anti-

12   corruption    political   opinion.   Accordingly,   Sun   had   the

13   burden to “provide some evidence, direct or circumstantial,”

14   that his persecutors were motivated by his anti-corruption

15   beliefs.     INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992).

16   “A political opinion is imputed when an individual has a

17   political opinion attributed to him—correctly or incorrectly—

18   on account of his beliefs, actions or associations.”       Ruqiang

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

20   marks omitted).     While opposing corruption can be understood

21   as expressing a political opinion, it does not qualify as a

                                      3
 1   protected ground for the purposes of asylum and withholding

 2   of removal when it amounts to “challeng[ing] . . . isolated,

 3   aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance.”           Yueqing Zhang

 4   v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 548 (2d Cir. 2005).

 5       The agency reasonably found that Sun did not show that

 6   police or local officials targeted him because of a political

 7   opinion.   Sun   testified   that   he   did   not   belong   to   any

8    political organization, movement, or labor union in China.

9    He further testified that he was employed by a private company

10   and that his boss told him that he had police arrest and beat

11   him for reporting to local government officials that the

12   company was using subpar materials.        According to Sun, his

13   boss also told him that he had gone to school with the local

14   public security bureau chief and paid the police to protect

15   him from complaints like Sun’s.          Sun reported only one

16   instance of corruption, not continuing issues and problems.

17   On this record, the agency reasonably found that the police

18   did not target Sun because of a political opinion, but rather

19   because his boss bribed them to do so.           Having failed to

20   establish a nexus to a protected ground, Sun failed to meet

                                    4
 1   his burden for asylum and withholding of removal.                     See 8

 2   U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A).

 3       II. CAT Relief

 4       To obtain CAT relief, an applicant must show that he

 5   would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the

 6   acquiescence    of     government          officials.        See    8 C.F.R.

 7   §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a).              “Torture is an extreme form

 8   of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . specifically intended to

 9   inflict    severe    physical     or       mental   pain   or    suffering.”

10   8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2), (5).             The agency must consider all

11   evidence   relevant    to   the   possibility        of    future   torture,

12   including evidence of past torture, the applicant’s ability

13   to relocate, and violations of human rights within the country

14   of removal.    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3).

15       Sun stated that his police beatings began in August 2011

16   and ended in January 2012 when he arrived in the United

17   States.    He was initially arrested and beaten until he was

18   unconscious.   After the officers released him, they required

19   him to report to them on a weekly basis.                        During those

20   reports, officers yelled at him and slapped and kicked him

21   hard enough to cause swelling and bruising.                 Sun’s wife and

                                            5
 1   parents told him that the police looked for him in July 2018,

 2   a month before his hearing, and that officers beat his wife

 3   when she complained about their harassment.

 4          We remand because the decision below is unclear as to

 5   why    the     agency        denied    Sun’s     CAT   claim.       “Despite     our

 6   generally deferential review of IJ and BIA opinions, we

 7   require a certain minimum level of analysis . . . if judicial

 8   review is to be meaningful.”                     Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420

 9   F.3d 70, 77 (2d Cir. 2005).                 Here, the agency has not provided

10   such     analysis.             The     IJ    apparently       disbelieved      Sun’s

11   allegation that the police continued to look for him, but

12   still found him credible.                  Moreover, the IJ’s statement that

13   “there    is       nothing     in     the   record     to    indicate   that   [the

14   government] would torture” Sun does not specify whether the

15   IJ found a lack of evidence that police would target Sun or

16   concluded that Sun’s treatment would not rise to the level of

17   torture.           Because the agency did not provide sufficient

18   reasoning to allow for judicial review, we remand for further

19   review of the CAT claim.                    See Poradisova, 420 F.3d at 77

20   (“Inadequate            analysis      or    failure    to    consider   important

21   evidence       .    .    .   [is]     not    excused    by    the   fact    that   a

                                                  6
 1   hypothetical adjudicator, applying the law correctly, might

 2   also have denied the petition for asylum.”) (quotation marks

 3   omitted).

 4       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

 5   DENIED in part as to asylum and withholding of removal and

 6   GRANTED and REMANDED in part as to Sun’s CAT claim.    Sun’s

 7   motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.

 8                              FOR THE COURT:
 9                              Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
10                              Clerk of Court

                                  7