PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13933
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Perez-Ramirez, a Mexican national, worked at PROTINBOS, a State of Mexico agency; he uncovered a large payroll and fraud scheme in 1986–1987 and implemented reforms.
- From Feb–May 1987, he was threatened and assaulted after reporting irregularities.
- He continued reporting to supervisors, leading to further harassment, arrests, and torture by police tied to corrupt officials.
- In 1989, after attempting to resign, he was subjected to a fictitious debt and internal obstacles; he eventually left PROTINBOS in June 1989.
- A warehouse fire in Oct. 1989 prompted police kidnapping, torture, and forced false statements; he fled Mexico four years later.
- In 1997, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, which the IJ denied and the BIA affirmed; a split in the BIA existed on whether he was a whistleblower.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner qualified as a whistleblower of government corruption | Perez-Ramirez exposed corruption to supervisors, constituting political activity | BIA held no whistleblower since not exposed to outside agency | Yes; petitioner qualifies as whistleblower; remand for rebuttal of future persecution burden |
| Whether petitioner's whistleblowing nexus supports asylum and withholding of removal | Exposure to corruption and retaliation establish nexus to political opinion | Nexus not established without outside disclosure | Yes; nexus shown; remand to consider rebuttal burden for well-founded fear |
| Whether CAT relief was properly analyzed given relocation presumption | Past persecution creates nationwide threat presumption; relocation burden should be considered | BIA did not apply presumption of nationwide threat | Remand to determine if government rebutted presumption and relocation sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (political activity may comprise whistleblowing against corruption)
- Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (exposure to higher officials can be whistleblowing activity)
- Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2004) (exposure of corruption can constitute political activity)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (S. Ct. 2002) (remand for BIA to address presumptions in asylum)
- Njuguna v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2004) (past persecution and retaliation can establish eligibility for asylum)
- Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) (persecution findings supported by arrests and beatings)
- Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden to show internal relocation feasibility when past persecution shown)
- Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (presumption of nationwide threat when well-founded fear shown)
- Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT standards considering all relevant country conditions)
- Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal relocation considerations in asylum cases)