770 (9th Cir.2004) (“He must establish that the political opinion would motivate his potential persecutors.”)- Viktor’s status as a government employee clearly suffices to show an imputed political opinion under our case law. We have stated that we consider “persecution of those who work for or with political figures to be on account of the political opinion of their employer even if the nature of their work ... is not in itself political.” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 659 n. 19 (9th Cir.2000 r the act of publicizing corruption amounts to persecution on account of a political opinion” even when the petitioner “did not espouse a political theory.” Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.2004); see also Njuguna, 374 F.3d at 770-71; Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). These cases also require that the corruption
holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff actually told her supervisors that she was being sexually harassed and the supervisors did not take any steps whatsoever to investigate those allegations holding that nexus existed where government employee exposed corruption of his supervisors holding that federal employee could not sue supervisors for discharge alleged to have violated her first amendment rights holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation holding that standing existed