Goujun Zhou v. Sessions, 691 F. App'x 19

Petitioner Goujun Zhou, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after being detained and beaten by police following a workplace protest over unpaid wages.
Zhou testified he refused to leave his employer’s office during a protest; he admitted he had no evidence the employer’s nonpayment stemmed from government corruption and was not politically active or in unions.
The Immigration Judge denied all relief; the BIA affirmed, except it declined to reach some findings the IJ made; Zhou petitioned for review in this Court.
The agency found Zhou failed to show the harm was on account of a protected ground (political opinion) and thus denied asylum and withholding of removal.
The IJ separately evaluated CAT relief (which does not require a nexus) and denied it; Zhou challenged the IJ’s alleged bias but the Court found no reversible bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zhou’s beating was persecution on account of political opinion for asylum/withholding	Zhou argued police punished him for protesting employer’s failure to pay, implying political motive	Government argued Zhou offered no evidence linking protest to opposition to corruption or to a political belief	Court held Zhou failed to show nexus to political opinion; asylum and withholding denied
Whether retaliation for economic protest can show political opinion nexus	Zhou contended his protest was a challenge to employer conduct warranting protection	Gov't argued the protest was economic and not a challenge to governmental authority or corruption	Court held economic protest alone does not establish political-opinion nexus absent showing of challenge to regime legitimacy
Whether Zhou is entitled to CAT relief independent of nexus finding	Zhou argued IJ/BIA failed to independently assess likelihood of torture	Gov't argued IJ did independently evaluate CAT claim and denial was supported	Court held IJ independently evaluated CAT claim and denial was proper; CAT relief denied
Whether IJ demonstrated bias requiring remand	Zhou argued IJ showed hostility or bias during proceedings	Gov't argued IJ properly questioned and developed the record without advocacy	Court held record showed no reversible bias; no remand required

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing IJ decisions as modified by the BIA)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration decisions)
Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2014) (more than one motive for mistreatment allowed if a protected ground is central)
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (requirement that persecutor’s motive arise from applicant’s political belief)
Yan Fang Zhang v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2006) (economic protest/layoff disputes do not necessarily indicate political motive)
Guo-Le Huang v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand may be required for IJ bias)
Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2006) (limits on IJ assuming role of advocate)