Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800

Petitioner Otgonbayar Lkhagvasuren, a Mongolian national, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2010 and applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief after losing his job in Mongolia.
He worked for an alcoholic-beverage company, believed the company engaged in corrupt and unsafe practices, was fired, joined a consumer-activist group, and publicly criticized the company's conduct.
Lkhagvasuren contends his whistleblowing expressed an anti-corruption political opinion and that he (and his family) were persecuted by or with the acquiescence of government actors in retaliation.
The Board of Immigration Appeals applied Matter of N-M-’s three-factor framework for whistleblowing-based political opinion claims and denied relief; the IJ and BIA found no government involvement or acquiescence and little evidence of targeting for political opinion.
The Ninth Circuit assumed without deciding that Matter of N-M- can be used to assess the factual nexus required under the REAL ID Act but concluded substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s whistleblowing constituted a protected political opinion	Lkhagvasuren: his public anti-corruption advocacy amounted to political opinion	BIA/Respondent: his activities targeted a private company, not government, and lacked evidence of political character	Held: Failed — petitioner did not show whistleblowing was political opinion tied to government misconduct
Whether persecutors were motivated by petitioner’s political opinion	Lkhagvasuren: alleged retaliation and threats aimed to silence his activism	BIA/Respondent: record lacks direct or circumstantial evidence linking persecutors’ motive to his anti-corruption stance	Held: Failed — substantial evidence supports finding no motive linked to political opinion
Whether corruption was connected to government or involved acquiescence	Lkhagvasuren: alleged government meetings with company officials and a conspiracy to silence him	BIA/Respondent: petitioner did not prove government involvement; government later publicly opposed the company’s misconduct	Held: Failed — no adequate proof of government ties or acquiescence
Eligibility for CAT relief (risk of torture by government)	Lkhagvasuren: feared torture if returned due to prior targeting	BIA/Respondent: little likelihood government would torture him; government opposed the private corruption publicly	Held: Failed — substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief

Grava v. I.N.S., 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (whistleblowing against corrupt officials can constitute political activity supporting asylum)
Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2015) (petitioner bears burden to prove nexus between persecution and protected ground)
Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2005) (individual may be targeted for an actual or imputed political opinion)