Filed: Sep. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4884-ag Zhu v. Holder BIA Holmes-Simmons, IJ A096 395 095 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 (WIT
Summary: 09-4884-ag Zhu v. Holder BIA Holmes-Simmons, IJ A096 395 095 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..
More
09-4884-ag
Zhu v. Holder
BIA
Holmes-Simmons, IJ
A096 395 095
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 29 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 JIAN CHAO ZHU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-4884-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Madeo & Fasano,
25 New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting,
29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Allison
1 Frayer, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
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.
10 Jian Chao Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s
11 Republic of China, seeks review of a October 27, 2009, order
12 of the BIA affirming the January 4, 2008, decision of
13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, which
14 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
15 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
16 re Jian Chao Zhu, No. A096 395 095 (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 2009),
17 aff’g No. A096 395 095 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 4, 2008).
18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
21 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
22 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
23 applicable standards of review are well-established.
24 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
25 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 The agency reasonably found that Zhu failed to
2 establish that he was persecuted on account of his political
3 opinion. In addition to showing past persecution or a well-
4 founded fear of future persecution, asylum eligibility
5 requires that the persecution be on account of the
6 applicant’s race, religion, nationality, political opinion,
7 or membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C.
8 § 1101(a)(42). To establish persecution based on a
9 political opinion, the “applicant must . . . show, through
10 direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor’s
11 motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s political
12 belief.” Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d
13 Cir. 2005). We have found that “opposition to endemic
14 corruption or extortion, no less than opposition to other
15 government practices or policies, may have a political
16 dimension when it transcends mere self-protection and
17 represents a challenge to the legitimacy or authority of the
18 ruling regime.”
Id. at 547-48. Zhu has made no such
19 showing.
20 The agency reasonably found that Zhu’s difficulties
21 with Don Cun Qi were no more than a personal dispute
22 resulting from Qi’s desire to date Zhu’s girlfriend. T he
3
1 record supports a finding that Qi was motivated by Zhu’s
2 personal circumstances, not his political opinion, as Zhu
3 testified that Qi told him to leave his girlfriend. Thus,
4 the agency reasonably found that Zhu’s difficulties were no
5 more than a personal dispute because Qi wanted to date Zhu’s
6 girlfriend . See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Yueqing Zhang, 426
7 F.3d at 545. To the extent Zhu claims that he has a
8 well-founded fear of persecution based on his “complaint
9 letter” challenging the charges against him, he did not
10 provide a copy of the letter to the Court or testify about
11 the contents of the letter. Moreover, he testified that he
12 received no response to his letter and nothing in the record
13 indicates that any government officials are looking for him.
14 Accordingly, the IJ reasonably found that Zhu’s letter did
15 not constitute opposition to government corruption because
16 he did not establish that his letter “transcend[ed] mere
17 self-protection.” See
id. at 547-48 (“[T]he important
18 questions for determining the nature of the applicant’s
19 opposition are whether the applicant’s actions were directed
20 toward a governing institution, or only against individuals
21 whose corruption was aberrational”)(internal quotations
22 omitted).
4
1 To the extent Zhu argues that he fears persecution for
2 his failure to return to court after his release from
3 detention, it is well-established that petitioners are not
4 entitled to relief for prosecution they would face for
5 violating a generally applicable criminal law. See Qun Yang
6 v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 163 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) (per
7 curiam); see also Saleh v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,
962 F.2d
8 234, 239 (2d Cir. 1992). Moreover, Zhu has not presented
9 any evidence that officials are still searching for him.
10 See Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir.
11 2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if
12 it lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely
13 “speculative at best”).
14 Because the agency reasonably found that Zhu failed to
15 show a nexus to a protected ground, it properly denied his
16 application for asylum and withholding of removal.
17 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Yueqing
18
Zhang, 426 F.3d at 545; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d
19 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) . Zhu does not challenge the
20 agency’s denial of CAT relief.
21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
23 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
5
1 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
2 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
3 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
6
