Yanjun Xin v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 16-60680 Document: 00514229697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60680 FILED Summary Calendar November 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk YANJUN XIN, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 196 965 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Yanjun Xin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying Xin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Xin argued that he would be targeted for ill-treatment if he returned to China because he sought to challenge his local * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-60680 Document: 00514229697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 No. 16-60680 government’s decision to breach a lease agreement with Xin without providing him adequate compensation. He asserted that when he attempted to complain to government officials, the police arrested him, beat him, and held him for four days. We review only the BIA’s decision unless the IJ’s reasoning influenced the BIA. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 785 (5th Cir. 2016). To support his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, Xin was required to show that he suffered persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in China on the basis of his membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). The BIA understood Xin’s application as seeking relief on the basis that he belonged to two groups: first, Chinese who have been forcefully evicted from their property or had their property confiscated and, second, Chinese landholders who attempt to obtain redress from the government. Xin does not dispute this characterization. The first proposed social group—those who have been evicted from their property or who have had their property confiscated—is not a protected group because it is defined by the fact that its members were targeted for ill-treatment, specifically, the seizure of property they possessed. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). As for landholders who attempt to seek redress from the government, Xin pointed to no evidence that they share a characteristic such that they are perceived as members of a social group or that they are recognized as a discrete class by society in China. See Hernandez- De La Cruz, 819 F.3d at 786-87. To the extent that Xin seeks to argue that he is entitled to relief on the basis that he is a member of the rural ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals