Andrei Skripkov v. William P. Barr, 966 F.3d 480

Background:

Petitioner Andrei Skripkov, a former Chelyabinsk regional civil servant, refused to participate in regional procurement kickback schemes and later reported suspected corruption to authorities and Alexei Navalny’s Anti‑Corruption Foundation.
After resigning, Skripkov experienced ongoing threats, harassment, two physical assaults (one involving men using a Federal National Guard vehicle), property damage, and repeated arrests at public protests beginning in 2018.
During a July 2018 arrest officers threatened him with prosecution under Article 212.1 of the Russian Criminal Code (penalizing repeated participation in unsanctioned protests); in December 2018 Russia indicted him under Article 212 and issued summonses.
Skripkov applied for asylum and withholding of removal in the U.S.; the IJ found him credible but concluded the mistreatment was motivated solely by the persecutors’ pecuniary interests (retaliation for lost profits), not by his political opinion, and denied relief.
The BIA affirmed, declining to consider the indictment/summons evidence submitted on appeal and summarily finding it would not alter the outcome; Skripkov petitioned for review.
The Sixth Circuit granted review, held the BIA/IJ failed to analyze whether the threatened prosecution under Article 212.1 was pretextual and whether the officers’ pecuniary motive was intertwined with opposition to Skripkov’s anticorruption political opinion, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA erred by refusing to consider Skripkov’s indictment/summons evidence submitted on appeal	Skripkov: the indictment/summons under Article 212.1 is material evidence of threatened political prosecution and should be considered	Govt/BIA: the documents were new evidence on appeal and, even if considered, would be insufficient to meet asylum burden	Court: BIA erred by failing to analyze the evidence’ s import; remand required for consideration
Whether prosecution or threatened prosecution under Article 212.1 can constitute persecution rather than lawful enforcement	Skripkov: Article 212.1 is a tool of political repression; its threat was pretextual and shows political motive	Govt: arrests/charges were enforcement of generally applicable law tied to pecuniary/private retaliation, not political persecution	Court: prosecution may be persecution if pretextual; BIA/IJ failed to assess context and substance of Article 212.1; remand required
Whether the mistreatment had the required nexus to a protected ground (political opinion)	Skripkov: his anticorruption activism (public protests, Navalny association) was known to assailants and the Article 212.1 threat shows they targeted him for that opinion	Govt/BIA: assailants were motivated by personal/pecuniary reasons (lost illicit profits); no direct evidence of political motive	Court: mixed motives plausible; evidence (threatened prosecution + arrests at protests) raises circumstantial nexus; BIA/IJ failed to adequately analyze nexus; remand
Proper standard for withholding of removal after asylum denial	Skripkov: IJ erred to apply asylum’s "one central reason" standard to withholding claim	Govt: IJ concluded failure of asylum claim supports withholding denial	Court: withholding requires a higher "clear probability" standard; if IJ relied on "one central reason," must apply Guzman‑Vazquez guidance on proper standard on remand

Key Cases Cited

Cruz‑Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir. 2010) (general rule that prosecution under generally applicable criminal laws usually is not persecution unless pretext or other exceptions apply)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (nexus requires persecution because of victim’s political opinion, not persecutor’s)
Jin Jin Long v. Holder, 620 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (singling out for enforcement or harsh punishment because of political opinion can support asylum; remand where prosecution appeared pretextual)
Perkovic v. I.N.S., 33 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 1994) (prosecution for political crimes can constitute persecution)
Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2011) (extortion/pecuniary‑motivated attacks insufficient for political‑opinion nexus absent evidence of political activism)
Marquez v. I.N.S., 105 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 1997) (circumstances of public anticorruption activity plus coordinated reprisals can establish nexus)
Marku v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982 (6th Cir. 2004) (applicant must show persecution was "on account of" a protected ground)
Berhane v. Holder, 606 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2010) (Board decisions require a reasoned basis to receive deference)
Guzman‑Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020) ("one central reason" asylum standard does not apply to withholding‑of‑removal claims)