Opinion
No. 07-5781-ag NAC.
November 25, 2008.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition is DENIED.
FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
PRESENT: HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, HON. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, HON. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Hui Qin Lin, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30, 2007 order of the BIA affirming the January 11, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Sandy Hom, denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In re Hui Qin Lin, No. A95 708 528 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2007),aff'g No. A95 708 528 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 11, 2006). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and supplements the IJ's decision, this Court reviews the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as "conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007). However, we will vacate and remand for new findings if the agency's reasoning or its fact-finding process was sufficiently flawed. Cao He Lin v. United States Dep't of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 406 (2d Cir. 2005). Questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact are reviewed de novo. See Manzur v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d at 288.
Lin argues that the agency erred in finding that she failed to establish refugee status based on a well-founded fear of political persecution if returned to China. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). She contends that village officials (1) considered her father's failure to repay a government loan an expression of anti-government sentiment; (2) imputed her sfather's political opinion to her and the rest of her family; and (3) were motivated to persecute her based on her imputed political beliefs.
To show that persecution occurred or will occur on account of political opinion, a petitioner must demonstrate, through either direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecution arises from his actual or imputed political opinion. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992)). To determine whether opposition to the government demonstrates actual or imputed political opinion, we consider whether the petitioner's actions were "directed toward a governing institution, or only against individuals whose corruption was aberrational," and whether the persecutor "was attempting to suppress a challenge to the governing institution, as opposed to a challenge to isolated, aberrational acts of greed or malfeasance."Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d at 548 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The agency reasonably determined that Lin failed to establish that her father's failure to repay his loan was "directed toward a governing institution." See id. at 548. Indeed, the record shows that Lin's father wanted to repay the loan and made sincere efforts to satisfy his debt obligation to the government's satisfaction, including an unsuccessful attempt to raise funds by selling his factory. Moreover, there is no evidence that the mistreatment of Lin's family involved any government officials other than the two administrators of the loan fund who arrested and detained them on May 30, 2004. Nothing in the record indicates that government interest in Lin's family extended beyond these two individuals. Most important, there is no record support for the conclusion that, in mistreating Lin's family, local officials were "attempting to suppress a challenge to the governing institution." Id. Rather, the record supports the agency's conclusion that the arrest and detention of Lin's family and the officials' physical abuse of Lin's father and brother resulted solely from the father's failure to repay the loan. Lin's conclusory testimony that the officials deemed her family "enemies" of the government does not compel a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, the agency properly denied Lin's applications for asylum and withholding of removal based on her failure to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future government persecution on account of imputed political opinion if she returned to China.
In addition, Lin waived any challenged to the denial of her application for CAT relief. Other than a boilerplate recitation of the standard for CAT eligibility, Lin devotes only one sentence of her brief to a discussion of her CAT claim, stating that the fact that she was deemed an "enemy" of the village "demonstrates [her] eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under the [CAT] in light of the country conditions indicating pervasive torture of political opponents in China." Because Lin does not elaborate on this single conclusory statement, her CAT claim is "not sufficiently argued," and we decline to address it. See id. at 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (citations omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.