Liu v. Garland ( 2021 )

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,
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
2
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.
3
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
4
(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
5