Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Solongo GANTUMUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71437.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 6, 2012.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Edward C. Durant, Sarnia Naseem, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Solongo Gantumur, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Gantumur was harmed by her employer when she refused his demand to falsely claim she embezzled funds. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Gantumur did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See id. at 1052 (personal retribution by a prominent politician was not persecution on account of a protected ground); Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2000) (“Whistleblowing against one’s supervisors at work is not, as a matter of law, always an exercise of political opinion.”). Accordingly, Gantumur’s asylum claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.