FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISIDRO PEREZ-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner, No. 07-70114
v.
Agency No.
A076-679-915
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney
General, OPINION
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted
January 12, 2011—San Francisco, California
Filed July 8, 2011
Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Mary M. Schroeder, and
Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Hug
9157
PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER 9159
COUNSEL
Paula J. Solorio and Sarah Kate Heilbrun, Law Offices of Fel-
lom & Solorio, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner.
9160 PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER
Eric W. Marsteller and Justin Markel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for
the respondent.
OPINION
HUG, Senior Circuit Judge:
Isidro Perez-Ramirez (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Con-
vention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner argues on appeal
that he acted as a whistleblower against government corrup-
tion and that the BIA erred in denying his claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We hold that petitioner qualifies as a whistle-
blower. Thus, we grant the petition for review, reverse the
BIA, and remand the case accordingly.
I. Background
Petitioner worked as a purchasing analyst for PROTIN-
BOS, an agency of the State of Mexico that developed for-
ested areas. In 1986, petitioner noticed certain major
accounting irregularities at work. Petitioner discovered that
fictitious names of employees who did not exist had been
listed on an employment register. He discovered that fraudu-
lent claims had been submitted for payment of overtime hours
and that employees had made fraudulent requests for gas
reimbursements and car repairs. He related this information to
his supervisor, Rosa Martinez, and she told him to cure the
problems. In January or February 1987, petitioner overhauled
the accounting process and implemented certain reforms, such
PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER 9161
as personally distributing paychecks and going to the agen-
cy’s greenhouses.
In February 1987, while petitioner was traveling on a rural
highway, he was stopped by men blocking the road. The men
told petitioner that a high-ranking government official said
that he should give the payroll records to the managers of the
greenhouses and that he should not pay employees directly.
After this incident, from February through May 1987, peti-
tioner was threatened twice and physically attacked five
times. On one occasion, petitioner was traveling and a tree
blocked the road. Petitioner exited the vehicle and was hit on
the back of his neck and kicked after he fell to the ground.
The attackers threatened to kill him if he did not stop imple-
menting the reforms. Petitioner reported the attacks to his
supervisor, but the attacks continued until he stopped travel-
ing to the greenhouses and was promoted to manager of gen-
eral services in May 1987.
As manager, petitioner discovered more accounting irregu-
larities, such as missing funds, and reported the problems to
his supervisor. Several months later, in January 1988, peti-
tioner changed positions and became manager of purchasing
and general services. In this position, petitioner reported to his
old supervisor, Ms. Martinez, and a new supervisor, David
Moreno. Mr. Moreno began pressuring petitioner to engage in
corrupt business acts. He told petitioner that he had to make
purchases from distributors that Mr. Moreno selected and
conduct business deals with vendors who would share a per-
centage of the sales. Petitioner refused to comply. Mr.
Moreno attempted to sabotage purchasing deals and petitioner
was subjected to severe abuse and harassment. He was
arrested eight times by the police who told him that he needed
to comply with Mr. Moreno’s requests if he wanted to stay
alive. During some of these detentions, petitioner was tor-
tured: the police officers tied him to a board and put his head
in water on one occasion; on another occasion, the officers
forced chiles and mineral water into his nose.
9162 PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER
After enduring such abuse, petitioner told Mr. Moreno he
wanted to resign. Mr. Moreno, however, told petitioner that
he owed a debt of 600 million pesos which had to be paid
before he could leave the agency. Mr. Moreno could not tell
petitioner how the debt came into existence. While trying to
secure records to rectify the debt, petitioner was ordered to
join the Institutional Revolutionary Party (“PRI”) and trans-
port employees for a political rally. Petitioner refused to join
the PRI. Finally, petitioner managed to secure records show-
ing that he did not owe any debt and left PROTINBOS in
June 1989.
On October 12, 1989, a fire erupted at a PROTINBOS
warehouse which destroyed records of the goods that had
gone missing during petitioner’s tenure at PROTINBOS. The
insurance company investigating the fire arranged to inter-
view petitioner. Before the interview could occur, the state
police kidnaped petitioner at gunpoint, beat him, and held him
hostage for a weekend. For the duration of the weekend, a
canvas bag was placed over petitioner’s head and he was not
allowed to go to the bathroom or eat. On the first night, they
tied him up and left him hanging. His captors told him that
they were going to kill him if he didn’t keep his mouth shut
about the records. They instructed him to tell investigators
that the PROTINBOS warehouse which went up in flames
had been full of finished products and raw material.
After petitioner was released by his captors, he made the
requested false statements to the investigators and the govern-
ment. After he made the statements, he continued to receive
threatening phone calls. Four months later, he left Mexico.
Despite his absence, his parents were harassed. On two occa-
sions, individuals came to his parents’ home looking for him
and threatened his father. His parents’ ranch animals were
stolen and in one instance killed.
In 1997, petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief on the ground that he was persecuted
PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER 9163
and tortured as a whistleblower of government corruption.
The IJ denied relief, holding that petitioner did not qualify as
a whistleblower. The BIA majority affirmed, holding that he
was not a whistleblower because he did not expose the cor-
ruption to an outside agency. The dissenting BIA member
stated petitioner did constitute a whistleblower. See In re
Perez-Ramirez, slip op. at 4 (BIA Dec. 20, 2006) (Osuna, dis-
senting) (“[R]espondent’s effort to combat corruption within
his agency . . . constitute political activity, . . . respondent has
established past persecution on account of his political opin-
ion.”).
On February 9, 2006, this court granted the government’s
motion to remand to allow the BIA to clarify its findings in
light of Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2004). On
December 20, 2006, the BIA majority again held, in a 2 to 1
decision, that petitioner failed to show a nexus to political
opinion because he was not a whistleblower. The dissenting
BIA member again stated that petitioner did qualify as a
whistleblower of government corruption.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s decision that
an applicant has failed to establish eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal. Njuguna v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 765,
769 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the BIA conducts its own review
of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s determi-
nation our “review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to
the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Hosseini v.
Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quota-
tion mark and citation omitted).
B. Asylum & Withholding of Removal
[1] Petitioner argues that the BIA erred in denying his asy-
lum and withholding of removal claims, holding he did not
9164 PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER
qualify as a whistleblower of government corruption because
he did not report the corruption to an outside agency. Whistle-
blowing by a government employee against government offi-
cials engaged in corruption “may constitute political activity
sufficient to form the basis of persecution on account of polit-
ical opinion” for the purposes of an asylum claim. Grava v.
INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2000). “Refusal to accede
to government corruption can constitute a political opinion”
and any retaliation against an individual who exposes the cor-
ruption may amount to persecution for asylum. Id. Retaliation
for exposing corruption by government officials is “by its
very nature a political act.” Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d
1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Sagaydak v. Gonzales,
405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005)). When a political leader
uses his government office “to siphon public money for per-
sonal use, and uses political connections throughout a wide
swath of government agencies” to facilitate and “protect his
illicit operations, exposure of his corruption is inherently
political.” Hasan, 380 F.3d at 1121. The individual is “not
required to expose governmental corruption to the public at
large” or an outside agency in order to qualify as a whistle-
blower for the purposes of asylum. Fedunyak, 477 F.3d at
1129. It is sufficient if the whistleblowing individual reported
the government corruption to superiors and suffered retalia-
tion for acting against the corruption. Id.
In this case, the BIA erred in holding that petitioner did not
qualify as a whistleblower because he did not expose the gov-
ernment corruption to an outside agency. Petitioner discov-
ered and reported major incidents of fraud occurring within
his state agency. Petitioner reported the corruption to his
supervisor, Ms. Martinez, repeatedly throughout 1987 and
1988. Reforms were implemented and the result was that peti-
tioner endured retaliation, including being threatened and
attacked by individuals who threatened to kill him if he did
not end the reforms. He reported these attacks as well as addi-
tional fraudulent incidents he discovered to his supervisor,
Ms. Martinez. When he began reporting to another supervisor,
PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER 9165
David Moreno, petitioner endured further severe persecution
and retaliation. Mr. Moreno pressured petitioner to engage in
corrupt business acts and siphon funds from sales. Petitioner
refused. Because he refused to accede to Mr. Moreno’s
demands, petitioner was arrested and detained eight times by
the police. The police told him that he had to acquiesce to Mr.
Moreno’s wishes if he wanted to stay alive and he was repeat-
edly tortured. When petitioner tried to resign, Mr. Moreno
created a fictitious debt that petitioner owed. Petitioner was
forced to remain at the agency until the false claim was
resolved. Even after petitioner left the agency, the state police
kidnaped him at gunpoint, tortured him, and told him to lie to
investigators about products in the fire-stricken warehouse
owned by the state.
[2] Petitioner’s exposure of the government corruption to
his supervisor, Ms. Martinez, and his refusal to accede to Mr.
Moreno’s corrupt demands, are acts which constitute political
activity and qualify petitioner as a whistleblower of govern-
ment corruption. Repeatedly exposing the corruption to his
supervisor was adequate; he did not need to report it to an out-
side agency to qualify as a whistleblower of government cor-
ruption. See id. at 1129-30 (holding that an alien’s refusal to
comply with extortion demands by officials and his reporting
the corruption to higher officials was political and was
whistleblowing activity); Njuguna, 374 F.3d at 768-71 (hold-
ing that an alien was eligible for asylum where he acted
against corruption by rescuing two maids from the Saudi
royal family even though he did not expose the corruption to
the public). Petitioner suffered severe retaliation for refusing
to comply with Mr. Moreno’s criminal demands, including
being arrested eight times by the police and tortured during
his detentions, which constitutes past persecution. See Guo v.
Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding
that two arrests and repeated beatings constituted persecu-
tion). Thus, petitioner has demonstrated nexus on account of
political activity for asylum and withholding of removal.
9166 PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER
[3] The BIA denied petitioner asylum and withholding of
removal because he failed to establish a nexus to political
activity, which is erroneous. We therefore grant the petition
for review and remand to the BIA for consideration of
whether the government has met its burden to rebut the pre-
sumption that petitioner has a well-founded fear of future per-
secution on the basis of his whistleblowing activities. See INS
v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (remanding to the BIA
to determine in the first instance whether the government has
met its burden to rebut this presumption).
C. CAT Relief
[4] Petitioner argues that the BIA erred in holding that he
did not establish CAT relief. To establish CAT relief, peti-
tioner must show it is more likely than not that he will be tor-
tured by a public official or with the consent or acquiescence
of such an official if returned to his country of origin. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
“In assessing whether it is more likely than not that an appli-
cant would be tortured . . . all evidence relevant to the possi-
bility of future torture shall be considered, including, but not
limited to: [e]vidence of past torture, . . .; [e]vidence that the
applicant could relocate . . .; [e]vidence of gross, flagrant or
mass violations of human rights within the country of
removal; and other relevant information regarding conditions
in the country of removal.” Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279,
1282 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), (3))
(first emphasis and first ellipsis in the original) (second
emphasis omitted).
[5] As we have previously acknowledged, “it will rarely be
safe to remove a potential torture victim on the assumption
that torture will be averted simply by relocating him to
another part of the country.” Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d
1207, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, when the past-persecution
is shown, the government bears the burden to show by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that the petitioner can move else-
PEREZ-RAMIREZ v. HOLDER 9167
where within the country. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d
1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause a presumption of
well-founded fear arises upon a showing of past persecution,
the burden is on the INS to demonstrate by a preponderance
of the evidence, once such a showing is made, that the appli-
cant can relocate internally to an area of safety.”). Addition-
ally, when petitioner “has established a well-founded fear of
future persecution at the hands of the government, a rebutta-
ble presumption arises that the threat exists nationwide and
therefore that internal relocation is unreasonable.” Id.
[6] In this case, the BIA improperly placed the burden on
petitioner to show that he could not relocate within Mexico
and failed to apply the presumption of a nationwide threat.
The BIA held that although the abuse petitioner suffered did
constitute torture, there was no evidence that he could not
relocate within Mexico. We vacate the BIA’s decision regard-
ing CAT relief and remand for the agency to determine
whether the government met its burden. See Fakhry v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (remanding to
the BIA to determine whether the government rebutted the
presumption of a nationwide threat).
III. Conclusion
We reverse the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s asylum, with-
holding of removal, and CAT claims, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.
Each party shall bear their own costs.