Sixth Circuit Remands Whistleblower's Asylum Claim

The Sixth Circuit has remanded a whistleblower’s asylum claim where the agency indicated that the corrupt government officials targeted the asylum seeker because he interfered with their business arrangements, and not because of his political opinions. “In cases such as those cited above, where a petitioner seeks asylum after refusing to take part in a corrupt government scheme, the corrupt officials will almost always be motivated, at least in part, by their own pecuniary interest. But where, as in Skripkov’s case, a petitioner’s anticorruption activities manifest themselves through acts of public protest, the government officials’ pecuniary interest and their desire to quell the petitioner’s political activities typically become inseparable.”

The full text of Skripkov v. Barr can be found here:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0223p-06.pdf

Ninth Circuit Defers to BIA's Whistleblowing Framework

The Ninth Circuit has deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) decision in Matter of N-M-, in which the Board developed a three-factor test for application for asylum based on whistleblowing activities. The three factors are: (1) whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs; (2) any direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged persecutor was motivated by the alien’s perceived or actual anticorruption beliefs, and (3) evidence regarding the pervasiveness of government corruption, as well as whether there are direct ties between the corrupt elements and higher level officials.

The full text of Singh v. Barr can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/08/27/15-73940.pdf

Ninth Circuit Amends its Whistleblowing Decision

The Ninth Circuit has amended its decision in Lkhasgvasuren v. Lynch.  Initially, the Court deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals framework for whistleblower asylum cases, as articulated in Matter of N-M-.  In the amended decision, the Court assumed, without deciding, that the N-M- framework would apply to whistleblowing claims.

The amended decision in Lkhasgvasuren v. Lynch can be found here: 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/30/13-71778.pdf

Ninth Circuit Addresses Whistleblowing as a Political Opinion

The Ninth Circuit adopted the Board of Immigration Appeals' framework for evaluating asylum claims based on whistleblowing.  The court must evaluate  (1) whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs; (2) any direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged persecutor was motivated by the alien’s perceived or actual anticorruption beliefs; and (3) evidence regarding the pervasiveness of government corruption, as well as whether there are direct ties between the corrupt elements and higher level officials.  However, the court determined that the applicant failed to present evidence that his purported persecutors were motivated by his anticorruption beliefs, or that the corruption was even connected to government actors.

The full text of Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch can be found here: 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/13/13-71778.pdf

Ninth Circuit Addresses "Imputed Whistleblowing" as a Ground for Asylum

Hayk and Nadezhda Khudaverdyan applied for asylum from Armenia.  The Armenian military police detained, beat, and threatened Hayk after he was seen talking to a reporter following a personal confrontation with the city’s military police chief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) held that, because Hayk failed to prove that he intended to expose corruption when he talked to the reporter, he did not demonstrate that he was persecuted because of his actual political opinion.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the BIA failed to address evidence in the record that Hayk was persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion, that is, because military police officials thought that he was talking to the reporter in an attempt to expose government corruption

 The Ninth Circuit noted that Hayk testified credibly that the chief of the investigative department accused him of trying to “dishonor the military police” and accused him of espionage after he was seen talking to a reporter for a political opposition newspaper.  

The full text of Khudaverdyan v. Holder can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/02/27/10-73346.pdf