## Facts

- Dionesio Calunsag Grava, a native and citizen of the Philippines, entered the United States in 1991 as a nonimmigrant visitor and overstayed.
- Grava previously worked as a policeman and later as a customs officer in the Philippines, where he investigated and reported smuggling and corruption within the Bureau of Customs.
- He alleged that after reporting corruption by supervisors and testifying against a customs official, he faced retaliatory administrative charges, transfers, and threats, including death threats and property/pet harm.
- The INS denied his initial asylum application and initiated deportation proceedings; Grava conceded deportability and renewed requests for asylum and withholding of deportation.
- At the immigration hearing, Grava affirmed under oath that his written asylum application was true and correct, and the application and supporting documents were admitted into the record without objection.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding, concluding Grava had not shown persecution on account of a protected ground.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, largely disregarding the written application because Grava did not provide oral testimony restating its contents and there was no stipulation that oral testimony would match the application; the BIA also concluded the asserted harm was not on account of political opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the BIA erred by refusing to consider a sworn written asylum application as evidence absent a stipulation that the applicant’s oral testimony would have been consistent with the application.
2. Whether retaliation for exposing government corruption in the course of official duties can constitute persecution “on account of” political opinion for asylum and withholding purposes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded.
- The court held the BIA committed legal error by discounting the sworn written asylum application; regulations require the applicant to be under oath and affirm the application’s truth, not to orally repeat its full contents.
- The court held that exposing government corruption may constitute expression of political opinion, and persecution for such whistleblowing may satisfy the protected-ground nexus, depending on the persecutor’s motive and context.
- The court directed further proceedings under the correct evidentiary and legal standards.

## Legal Principles

- A sworn written asylum application admitted into the record is evidence the agency must consider; the agency may not impose an extra-statutory requirement that the applicant orally restate the application or obtain a stipulation of consistency as a condition of evidentiary consideration.
- In asylum adjudication, “political opinion” is not limited to party politics; opposition to governmental corruption can qualify as a political opinion.
- Retaliation by government officials for reporting corruption can constitute persecution on account of political opinion when the persecutor’s motive is to punish or silence perceived political opposition, rather than merely to settle a private dispute.
- Where the agency applies an incorrect legal standard to nexus or excludes competent evidence, remand is appropriate for fact-finding and application of the correct framework.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required the agency to consider a sworn asylum application as evidence and recognized that anti-corruption whistleblowing can support asylum or withholding as persecution on account of political opinion when the facts show the requisite motive and nexus.


Grava v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000)