Bingyao Sun v. Sessions
698 F. App'x 652
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Bingyao Sun, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after reporting a sexual assault by a government official and filing complaints.
- IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision except it did not rely on an adverse credibility finding the IJ made.
- Sun argued her complaints reflected opposition to official corruption (a political opinion) and that threats/charges (e.g., for proselytizing) or her mother’s business closure were retaliation.
- The agency found Sun’s actions were self-interested complaints about a personal assault, not a challenge to governmental legitimacy, and saw no evidence of an imputed political or religious belief.
- The agency also found no evidence Sun suffered harm during the 2.5 months she remained in China after reporting, and no link between the business closure and her complaints.
- Second Circuit reviewed the BIA-modified decision and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Sun's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sun’s complaints against her assailant constituted a political opinion giving asylum/withholding nexus | Sun: complaints opposed official corruption and thus were political | Gov: complaints were private, self-interested, not directed at governing institutions | Held: complaints were self-protection, not an anticorruption political opinion; no nexus to protected ground |
| Whether Sun was persecuted on account of an imputed political or religious opinion | Sun: government imputed political/religious views to punish her | Gov: no record evidence of any imputed political or religious belief; threats aimed to silence her complaints | Held: No evidence of imputation; agency reasonably concluded charges threatened to obtain silence, not punish beliefs |
| Whether threats/harms and business closure support CAT relief | Sun: pattern of government targeting of dissidents shows likelihood of torture/acquiescence | Gov: Sun was not a dissident; limited activity and no evidence of official acquiescence or subsequent harm | Held: CAT denied—no showing she would be tortured with government acquiescence; limited oppositional activity and no post-reporting harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA decisions)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review in immigration cases)
- Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (opposition to corruption may be political if it challenges regime legitimacy)
- Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (protected ground need not be sole motive)
- Koudriachova v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2007) (political opinion includes actual or imputed opinions)
- Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (organizing others against endemic corruption supports political-opinion nexus)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (factfinder’s permissible choice among views is not clearly erroneous)
- Ruqiang Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294 (2d Cir. 2012) (intervening for others can establish political opinion nexus)
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (CAT requires torture by or with government acquiescence)