Nareth Chhor v. Loretta E. Lynch
668 F. App'x 291
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ngan, a Cambodian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after coming to the U.S.; the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s denial and Ngan petitioned for review.
- Ngan refused to participate in a government-directed corruption scheme at his public–private utility employer that would have diverted funds to the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP).
- After refusing, Ngan was retaliated against: demoted, falsely accused of opposition-party membership (linked to a prior coup attempt), and received anonymous murder threats.
- Ngan testified he cannot safely report threats to Cambodian authorities because corruption is widespread, police suppress dissent, and there are no protections for corruption exposers.
- Country conditions evidence showed endemic corruption, CPP’s continued control, security forces acting with impunity, and instances of extra-judicial killings, supporting a risk of future persecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ngan proved past persecution | Ngan argued retaliation, demotion, accusations, and death threats constituted persecution | Government argued facts did not rise to past persecution | Court: Facts did not compel past persecution finding (citing precedent) |
| Whether Ngan established well-founded fear of future persecution for asylum | Ngan argued threats, retaliation, and country conditions create at least a ten percent chance of future persecution | Government argued risk was speculative and not attributable to government or protected ground | Court: Record compels finding of well-founded fear (10% test met) |
| Whether government would control persecutors / internal relocation feasible | Ngan argued perpetrators likely tied to CPP or uncontrolled actors; corrupt authorities unable/unwilling to protect him; internal relocation not viable | Government argued authorities could control threats or Ngan could relocate within Cambodia | Court: Corruption and impunity make protection unlikely; relocation not feasible |
| Standard of review for BIA summary affirmance | Ngan argued court should review IJ’s decision as final agency action | Government relied on BIA summary affirmance | Court: Review IJ’s order as final; applied substantial-evidence review |
Key Cases Cited
- Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004) (when BIA summarily affirms, court reviews IJ’s order as final agency action)
- Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2008) (asylum, withholding, and CAT eligibility reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for past persecution and when anonymous threats may indicate government involvement)
- Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) (well-founded fear may be shown by a ten percent chance of future persecution)
- Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (exposure of governmental corruption can constitute political opinion and be protected)