The Board follows its precedential decision in Matter of N–M– , which identified a three-factor standard to determine whether retaliation for whistleblowing amounts to persecution on account of a political opinion: (1) "whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs;" (2) "any direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged persecutor was motivated by the alien's perceived or actual anticorruption beliefs;" and (3) "evidence regarding the pervasiveness of government corruption, as well as whether there are direct ties between the corrupt elements and higher level officials." 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532–33 (BIA 2011). These factors assist the courts in analyzing the political nature, if any, of the whistleblowing activity and resulting persecution.

While the IJ found Bunyan credible and that he had suffered past persecution, the judge concluded that Bunyan failed to show he was persecuted because of any anti-corruption political opinion. In doing so, the IJ evaluated Bunyan's asylum claim under the BIA's decision in Matter of N-M-, 25 I. &N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011). Matter of N-M- requires immigration judges to consider: (1) "whether and to what extent

Mr. Lepetiuk appealed, and the BIA affirmed the immigration judge's decision. The BIA relied on its earlier decisions in Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. 658 (BIA 1998), and Matter of N-M, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011), for the proposition that persecution faced by law enforcement officials in relation to their work does not constitute a protected ground for purposes of asylum. Mr. Lepetiuk now petitions for review.

The IJ therefore evaluated his claim under the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") precedential decision in Matter of N–M– , which sets forth a three-factor standard to determine whether retaliation for "opposition to official corruption (or ‘whistleblowing’)" constitutes persecution on account of a political opinion. 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 526 (BIA 2011). Under that decision, the IJ considers: (1) "whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs," (2) "any direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged persecutor was motivated by the alien's perceived or actual anticorruption beliefs," and (3) "evidence regarding the pervasiveness of government corruption, as well as whether there are direct ties between the corrupt elements and higher level officials."

An alien's opposition to government corruption may support a finding that he was targeted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 528 (BIA 2011). A persecutor may have a reason to impute such a political opinion where the alien engages in acts such as campaigning against corruption, attending political anti-corruption rallies, distributing anti-corruption materials, or exposing corruption.

An asylum seeker must demonstrate not just that the persecutor was motivated in some measure by the asylum seeker's actual or imputed political belief, but that the political belief was "one central reason" for the persecution. Matter of N-M- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 531 (BIA 2011) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). We start with whether Du's actions constituted the expression of a political belief, then turn to whether any actual or imputed political beliefs were a central reason for his persecution.

See Bu v. Gonzales , 490 F.3d 424, 431–32 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that a petitioner who organized protests against government corruption had articulated a political opinion under the INA); Wang v. Mukasey , 259 F. App'x 763, 764 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that a petitioner’s protest activity against government corruption constituted a political opinion). Both the IJ and the BIA applied the three-step analysis described in Matter of N-M- , 25 I.&N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011), to determine whether Skripkov’s anticorruption activity was "one central reason" for his persecution. Under this analysis, the factfinder considers (1) "whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs"; (2) "any direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged persecutor was motivated by the alien’s perceived or actual anticorruption beliefs"; and (3) "evidence regarding the pervasiveness of government corruption, as well as whether there are direct ties between the corrupt elements and higher level officials."

Instead, Lee had to meet the standard of showing that his persecutors "would not have harmed the applicant if the protected trait did not exist." Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 2011 WL 2297860, at *5 (BIA 2011). He did not do so in this case.

It is also possible that exposing or threatening to expose government corruption to higher government authorities, the media, or nongovernmental watchdog organizations could constitute the expression of a political opinion.Matter of N-M- 25 I. N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011). The BIA stressed that it is not enough for the alien to demonstrate that his acts manifested a political opinion; the alien must also demonstrate that the persecutor's motive to persecute arose from the alien's political beliefs.

Amador-Lechuga does not point us to any testimony that he told the director he "did not want to be involved in the cartel," as opposed to merely stating he "did not want the post," Pet'r Br. at 18. Evidence showing "corrupt officials who act solely out of personal revenge or a desire to avoid the exposure of a lucrative scheme of corruption, without a significant concern about the alien's political beliefs, perceived or otherwise" does not establish the requisite nexus. Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 531-32 (B.I.A. 2011). Nor is there evidence of concern or motivation for persecution springing from Amador-Lechuga's membership in a particular social group.