Sukhova v. Sessions, 698 F. App'x 638

Petitioner Irina Sukhova, a Russian citizen, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after criminal prosecution following a civil suit she won against a state-owned company.
IJ denied relief in January 2014; BIA affirmed in July 2015. Petition for review to Second Circuit followed.
Sukhova claimed persecution based on actual or imputed political opinion—opposition to government corruption stemming from her lawsuit and defense against ensuing criminal charges.
Agency found her actions were limited to her personal dispute (no public advocacy, organizing, or broader anti-corruption activities).
For CAT, Sukhova argued likely detention and harsh prison conditions upon return; record showed prior detention, an outstanding arrest warrant, and State Department reports of harsh Russian prison conditions, but no evidence of intentional targeting or torture.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sukhova’s anti-corruption activities qualify as political opinion giving rise to asylum/withholding (nexus)	Her lawsuit and defense show actual or imputed political opposition to state corruption	Her litigation was self-interested and did not transcend her individual case, so no political motivation	Agency reasonably found no nexus; asylum and withholding denied
Whether it is more likely than not Sukhova would be tortured (CAT) if returned to Russia	Prior detention, outstanding warrant, harsh general prison conditions make torture likely	Prison conditions, though harsh, are not shown to be intentionally inflicted by government actors against her	Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; conditions not shown to amount to torture

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing standards and scope of review)
Edimo‑Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2006) (application of substantial evidence standard to asylum nexus)
Joaquin‑Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing CAT and related agency findings)
Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (anti‑corruption activity may be political when it transcends self‑interest)
Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (anti‑corruption efforts gain political dimension when publicized and organized)
Ruqiang Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294 (2d Cir. 2012) (distinguishing personal wage recovery from collective anti‑corruption action)
Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (substandard prison conditions constitute torture only if intentional and extreme)
Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (CAT standard and likelihood of torture)