Rui Guo v. Lynch
661 F. App'x 130
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Rui Guo, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s August 21, 2015 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Guo reported his manager’s alleged insider trading to his company’s internal investigations unit and confronted the manager; he was later fired and arrested on allegations he says were false.
- Guo argued he was persecuted because of an imputed political opinion—opposition to corruption—stemming from his whistleblowing.
- The IJ and BIA concluded Guo failed to show persecution on account of a political opinion (nexus) and denied relief; Guo sought review in the Second Circuit.
- The court reviewed the agency decisions for substantial evidence on the nexus question only and considered whether Guo’s conduct qualified as protected anti-corruption political activity under immigration precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guo was persecuted on account of his political opinion (anti-corruption) | Guo contends his reporting and confrontation manifested an imputed political opinion against corruption, and retaliation was motivated by that opinion | Government argues retaliation was personal and tied to workplace dispute, not political persecution | Held: Substantial evidence supports agency finding of no nexus; denial of asylum affirmed |
| Whether whistleblowing here constituted public or institutional anti-corruption activity | Guo argues his internal report was an anticorruption expression sufficient for nexus | Government argues his actions were routine job duties without broader political expression | Held: Court agrees with agency that actions were job-related and not public or political in nature |
| Whether persecutor acted from political motive vs. personal revenge | Guo argues manager’s retaliation was to suppress challenge to corruption | Government argues manager acted from personal revenge and to hide a scheme | Held: Agency reasonably found manager’s motive personal, not political |
| Whether the corruption opposed was endemic (governmental) or aberrational (individual) | Guo implies his report targeted systemic corruption | Government contends evidence shows isolated wrongdoing by a manager, not systemic corruption | Held: Agency reasonably concluded the conduct opposed was aberrational; no nexus to government/political institution |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for review of BIA/IJ decisions)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards for judicial review of removal decisions)
- Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (opposition to government corruption can constitute political opinion)
- Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishing challenges to governing institutions from challenges to aberrational acts)
- Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying substantial-evidence review to nexus determination)