Lanzhi Li v. Holder , 586 F. App'x 27 ( 2014 )

13-57
Li v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A088 294 475/476
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 2nd day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 Dennis Jacobs,
8 Denny Chin,
9 Christopher F. Droney,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LANZHI LI, JINGJIAN RAN,
14
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 13-57
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21
22 Respondent.
23 _______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONERS: Lanzhi Li, Jingjian Ran, Pro Se, San
26 Gabriel, CA.
27
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
3 Director; Jessica E. Sherman, Trial
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Lanzhi Li and Jingjian Ran (“Petitioners”), wife and
13 husband, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of
14 China, seek review of a December 10, 2012, decision of the
15 BIA affirming the June 21, 2011, decision of Immigration
16 Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, which denied Lanzhi Li’s
17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lanzhi
19 Li, Jingjian Ran, Nos. A088 294 475/476 (B.I.A. Dec. 10,
20 2012), aff’g Nos. A088 294 475/476 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
21 June 21, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
22 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
23 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
24 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514
25 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The applicable
26 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
2 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of
4 removal, an applicant must show persecution, or fear of
5 persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality,
6 membership in a particular social group, or political
7 opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42); 1231(b)(3). Li
8 argues that she was persecuted because of her expression of
9 her political opinion in opposing corruption.
10 “Although opposing corruption for purely self-
11 interested reasons may lack a political motivation,
12 ‘opposition to endemic corruption . . . may have a political
13 dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and
14 represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the
15 ruling regime.’” Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100-01 (2d
16 Cir. 2010) (quoting Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
17 547-48 (2d Cir. 2005)(alteration in original)). “Where the
18 dispute is such that the asylum seeker did not merely seek
19 economic advantage but mounted a challenge to the legitimacy
20 and authority of the ruling regime itself,” and shows that
21 the political challenge was one central reason that she was
22 persecuted, the persecution may then be on account of the
3
1 applicant’s anti-corruption political opinion. Yueqing
2 Zhang, 426 F.3d at 547; Castro, 597 F.3d at 104.
3 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion
4 that the Chinese government did not retaliate against Li
5 because of her political opinion. See 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146, 148-
7 49 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (the agency’s finding
8 regarding past persecution on account of protected ground is
9 reviewed under substantial evidence standard). In 1998, the
10 government destroyed Li’s home and her business, a store on
11 the ground of the building in which she lived, as well as
12 the homes of about 30 families living on the same street.
13 Despite a promise to compensate those who lost their homes,
14 the local housing bureau did not do so, and when Li
15 organized a protest, she was detained and beaten. Although
16 she continued to write letters to protest not being
17 compensated, she suffered no further harm before she left
18 China in 2007.
19 The agency found that Li was motivated by her desire to
20 be compensated, rather than to expose and protest
21 corruption. The fact that the government acted against her
22 only when she and fellow protesters refused to disperse, not
4
1 when she opposed corruption in other ways, supports the
2 agency’s conclusion that the government was not targeting Li
3 based on her political opinion. See Castro, 597 F.3d at
4 101; Yueqing Zhang, 597 F.3d at 548. Accordingly, the
5 agency reasonably concluded that Li did not meet her burden
6 of showing that the government retaliated against her due to
7 her opposition to corruption. See Castro, 597 F.3d at 101.
8 Because Li did not demonstrate that she was harmed on
9 account of a protected ground, the agency did not err in
10 denying her application for asylum and withholding of
11 removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii),
12 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1); Kone v. Holder, 596
13 F.3d 141, 152 (2d Cir. 2010). Moreover, because the nexus
14 finding is dispositive, we do not address the agency’s
15 alternate ruling that Li did not show that the harm she
16 endured rose to the level of persecution.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
22 oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
23
5
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
7
6