Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-71778/USCOURTS-ca9-13-71778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otgonbayar Lkhagvasuren
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OTGONBAYAR LKHAGVASUREN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 13-71778

Agency No.

A200-990-746

OPINION

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 14, 2016*

San Francisco, California

Filed July 13, 2016

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Mary M. Schroeder,

and Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 Case: 13-71778, 07/13/2016, ID: 10048225, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 1 of 6
2 LKHAGVASUREN V. LYNCH

SUMMARY**

Immigration

The panel denied a petition for review brought by a

Mongolian citizen who sought asylum and other relief from

removal based on his actions whistleblowing corruption by a

privately-owned former employer. 

The panel adopted the three-factor framework of Matter

of N–M–, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011), to determine

whetherretaliation for whistleblowing amountsto persecution

on account of a political opinion: (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.

Applying that framework, the panel held that substantial

evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that petitioner

failed to present evidence that his purported persecutors were

motivated by his anticorruption beliefs, or that the corruption

was connected to government actors. 

The panel held that petitioner also failed to establish a

sufficient likelihood of torture.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-71778, 07/13/2016, ID: 10048225, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 2 of 6
LKHAGVASUREN V. LYNCH 3

COUNSEL

Jeremiah Johnson, Johnson & McDermed, LLP, San

Francisco, California, for Petitioner.

Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Kiley Kane,

Senior Litigation Counsel; JeffreyR. Meyer, Attorney; Office

of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of

Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Otgonbayar Lkhagvasuren petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) decision to

denyhis applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1). We review the Board’s factual determinations

for substantial evidence and deny the petition.

Lkhagvasuren is a native and citizen of Mongolia who

entered the United States with a visitor’s visa in 2010 and

subsequently applied for asylum. In Mongolia he was

employed by an alcoholic-beverage company that he believed

was engaged in corrupt activities, was subsequently fired

from his job, joined a non-governmental consumer activist

group, and later publicly voiced objections to the company’s

business practices. Lkhagvasuren asserts that his

whistleblowing activities constituted a political opinion for

which he was persecuted with either the consent or

acquiescence of government actors.

 Case: 13-71778, 07/13/2016, ID: 10048225, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 3 of 6
4 LKHAGVASUREN V. LYNCH

A petitioner seeking asylum must establish that “race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,

or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason

for” persecution that the government is unable or unwilling

to control. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(i). The petitioner has

the burden to prove that a nexus exists between the

persecution and a protected ground. Khudaverdyan v. Holder,

778 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2015). Whistleblowing “may

constitute political activity sufficient to form the basis of

persecution” where petitioner’s whistle blew against corrupt

government officials, Grava v. I.N.S., 205 F.3d 1177, 1181

(9th Cir. 2000), and he was targeted for persecution on

account of that political opinion, whether actual or imputed. 

See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir.

2005).

The Board follows its precedential decision in Matter of

N–M–, which identified a three-factor standard to determine

whetherretaliation for whistleblowing amounts to persecution

on account of a political opinion: (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.” 

25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532–33 (BIA 2011). These factors assist

the courts in analyzing the political nature, if any, of the

whistleblowing activity and resulting persecution.

We adopt the analytical framework of Matter of N–M– for

the purpose of identifying whether an applicant has

established the required factual nexus between any purported

 Case: 13-71778, 07/13/2016, ID: 10048225, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 4 of 6
LKHAGVASUREN V. LYNCH 5

political whistleblowing and actual persecution as those terms

are defined in the REAL ID Act. Grava, 205 F.3d at 1181

(requiring the petitioner to show that “the alleged corruption

[was] inextricablyintertwined with governmental operation.”)

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that

Lkhagvasuren failed to present evidence that his purported

persecutors were motivated by his anticorruption beliefs, or

that the corruption was even connected to government actors.

He spoke publicly as a member of a consumer-activist group

opposed to the advertising and sale of unsafe alcohol by a

private company. He alleges that he saw government

officials meeting with the director of the company when they

had no reason to do so, but does not allege or prove any

actual government connection to his former employer’s

scandalous business practices of selling poisonous alcohol,

which were later publicly opposed by the government. Nor

has he shown that the alleged harm inflicted upon him or his

family involved government officials or their acquiescence. 

Lkhagvasuren’s theorythat a cabal of private and government

officials conspired to silence him is unsupported in the

record. He thus failed to establish that his whistleblowing

amounted to political opinion as a protected ground, or that

he was persecuted by or at the acquiescence of government

officials.

Where persecution did not occur on account of a

protected ground, Lkhagvasuren’s claims for asylum and

withholding of removal necessarily fail. Further, the

immigration judge’s conclusion, as adopted bythe Board, that

it is unlikely that Lkhagvasuren would face torture at the

hands of the government if returned to Mongolia is supported

by substantial evidence that the government publicly opposed

the private corruption Lkhagvasuren sought to expose, and

 Case: 13-71778, 07/13/2016, ID: 10048225, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 5 of 6
6 LKHAGVASUREN V. LYNCH

thus his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture

also fails.

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 13-71778, 07/13/2016, ID: 10048225, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 6 of 6