Yueqing Zhang v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General
- Decided
- October 13, 2005
- Docket
- Docket 02-4533
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,667 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that corrupt officials may well be motivated “by a pecuniary desire to shield their activities from detection” — N-M (2011)
- recognizing that where an asylum applicant opposes government extortion, he will often stand to gain financially from the challenge — N-M (2011)
- holding that party’s “single 8 conclusory sentence” of argument on claim was tantamount to 9 a waiver of that claim — Liu v. Barr (2020)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge.
Yueqing Zhang petitions for review of an August 28, 2002 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion an August 23, 2001 order of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying Zhang’s claims for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). [1]
Of relevance to this appeal, the IJ denied Zhang’s claims for asylum and statutory withhold [*542] ing of removal on the ground that Zhang’s opposition to extortion by corrupt government officials in his home city did not constitute “political opinion” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42) and 1231(b)(3)(A). We grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration of Zhang’s claims because retaliation for opposition to government corruption may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute persecution on account of political opinion within the meaning of those statutes.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Yueqing Zhang v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General, 426 F.3d 540 (2005)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.