Yun Shan Ni v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On Petition for Review of an Order of the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2656
YUN SHAN NI,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A95-928-887)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Alberto J. Riefkohl
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 2, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, STAPLETON, and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 7, 2008)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Yun Shan Ni petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review.
Ni, a native of China, attempted to enter the United States on August 12, 2003. On

-- 1 of 4 --

Ni only addresses his claim for asylum in his brief and does not argue that he is1
entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the CAT.
2
August 19, 2003, he was charged as removable as an immigrant not in possession of valid
entry documents. Ni conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ni argued that he
was persecuted in China as a result of reporting government corruption. After a hearing,
the IJ made an adverse credibility finding, denied relief, and ordered Ni removed to
China. The BIA dismissed the appeal. It did not address the adverse credibility finding,
but it agreed with the IJ that Ni had not met his burden of proof. The BIA stated that Ni
had not shown a link between the alleged persecution and any actual or imputed political
opinion. Through counsel, Ni then filed a timely petition for review.
The BIA’s decision should be reversed only if the record permits but one
reasonable conclusion which was not the one reached by the Board. I.N.S. v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Because the BIA did not address the adverse
credibility finding, we assume that Ni’s testimony was credible. Li v. Attorney General,
400 F.3d 157, 163-64 (3d Cir. 2005). To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant
must demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion. See Vente v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2005).1
Ni testified that he had been working as a clerk for the village committee for six

-- 2 of 4 --

In his asylum application, Ni did not mention being accused of levying false charges;2
he only stated that he was accused of embezzlement. The charges against him were not
specified in his certificate of detention.
3
months when he observed a government official accepting a bribe. He reported this to a
supervisor who seemed unconcerned and advised Ni not to say anything unless he had
proof. Ni did not report the incident to the police or the media. Ten days later, he was
arrested and accused of embezzlement and levying false charges. During his three-2
month detention, Ni alleged he was beaten by police officers. He admitted at the hearing
that he never told the police about the alleged bribe he witnessed.
The BIA recognized that retaliation for exposing political corruption could be
found to be persecution on account of political opinion. Cao v. Attorney General, 407
F.3d 146, 153 (3d Cir. 2005)(“[I]t is clear that Cao’s allegations of detention and physical
abuse for exposing and criticizing a government practice would be encompassed in the
more general asylum protections for those who have been persecuted on account of
political opinion.”) However, the BIA noted that unlike other asylum cases involving
political corruption, Ni never publicized his suspicions beyond informing a supervisor.
The BIA concluded that there was no evidence that Ni reported the corruption because of
his political opinion or that his supervisor imputed a political opinion to him.
In Cao, the alien alleged she was persecuted for working with a reporter to expose
infanticide in the hospital in China in which she worked. In his brief, Ni cites to three
other cases involving persecution on account of exposing political corruption. In Grava

-- 3 of 4 --

4
v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000), the alien’s testimony against a corrupt supervisor
was publicized in the media. In Bu v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2007), the alien
had organized a strike to expose corruption by government officials. In Mamouzian v.
Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2004), the alien was beaten for participating in an anti-
government rally and writing articles in opposition to corruption by the ruling party.
Here, Ni reported one incident of alleged bribery to a supervisor who seemed
uninterested and advised Ni not to say anything. Ni did not report the incident to any
other supervisors, the media or law enforcement. Even when he was charged with falsely
accusing an official, Ni did not tell law enforcement what he had observed. Moreover,
his detention was also based on charges of embezzlement. Ni has not shown that the
record compels a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution
on the basis of political opinion.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 4 of 4 --