Summary
Yang v. Barr, 2d Cir. 2020 (unpublished). Petitioner sought review of BIA denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The court held that the agency reasonably found petitioner failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because his single protest to free his father from detention was motivated by self-interest, not a challenge to endemic corruption or an expression of political opinion, and no imputed political opinion was shown. The CAT claim was unexhausted. Petition denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Yang established a nexus between his alleged persecution and a protected ground (political opinion or imputed political opinion) for asylum and withholding of removal.
Holdings
- Yang failed to establish that he was targeted on account of a political opinion or imputed political opinion; his protest was self-interested and did not transcend mere self-protection.
Key quotations
“the applicant must show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor's motive to persecute arises from the applicant's political belief” (3)
“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” (3-4)
“Yang failed to demonstrate that his actions 'transcend[ed] mere self-protection,' extended beyond a single protest, or that the government perceived him to be a political opponent” (5)
Factual background
Yang, a native and citizen of China, protested on one occasion to obtain his father's release from detention following a land dispute. He did not have a permit and was arrested after storming a government building. He had no further issues with the government. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on fear of persecution due to political opinion or imputed political opinion.
Procedural history
Yang, a native and citizen of China, sought review of an October 24, 2018, BIA decision affirming a November 3, 2017, IJ decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ's denial solely based on a failure to show a nexus to a protected ground.