Gyumushyan

dissenting:

I would deny the petition for review because Gyumushyan’s testimony established only one “individual! ] whose corruption was aberrational,” not whistleblowing “directed toward a governing institution.” Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2000); of. Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir.2004) (granting petition for review where petitioner’s “acts of protest were directed toward the policies and practices of the governing party, and not against ‘aberrational’ corrupt practices of a single individual”).

MEMORANDUM **

Anna Gyumushyan (“Gyumushyan”), and derivatively her daughter, Marianna Simikyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“I J”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. While finding her testimony credible, the IJ held that whatever persecution Gyumushyan suffered was not on account of any imputed political opinion or any other protected ground. This finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Because the BIA did not properly apply Ninth Circuit law regarding when whistleblowing against corrupt government officials constitutes protected political opinion, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA. The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we need not recite them here.

The IJ discounted Gyumushyan’s testimony that the cause of her husband’s arrest, the search of her apartment, and the threats they received was related to evidence her husband possessed and his efforts to prove the corruption of a government official, because the corruption was “public knowledge.” The IJ engaged in improper speculation and…