Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02834/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02834-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Chun Sui Yuan
Petitioner

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-2834

CHUN SUI YUAN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General 

of the United States,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals. 

No. A099-525-213

____________________

ARGUED APRIL 26, 2016 — DECIDED JUNE 28, 2016

____________________

Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Chun Sui Yuan, a 36-year-old 

Chinese citizen, applied for asylum and withholding of 

removal based on his asserted opposition to China’s coercive 

population-control policy. Central to his eligibility for relief 

is Yuan’s testimony that employees of a government birthcontrol agency assaulted him because his girlfriend had 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
2 No. 15-2834

failed to attend a medical examination. An immigration 

judge disbelieved much of Yuan’s story, reasoning that his 

testimony wasn’t credible and also lacked corroboration. The 

Board of Immigration Appeals, in its own standalone 

decision, endorsed the adverse credibility assessment but 

not the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) dissatisfaction with the 

amount of corroborating evidence. Yuan petitions for review 

of the Board’s decision, arguing that the credibility finding is 

flawed because several of the perceived inconsistencies are 

illusory and the actual inconsistencies are either immaterial 

or trivial. We agree and, thus, remand for further 

proceedings.

I. Background

With the assistance of a snakehead, Yuan illegally entered the United States near Hidalgo, Texas, in November 

2005. Within a few days, Yuan received a Notice to Appear 

charging him with removability for entering without permission. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Yuan conceded removability at a November 2006 hearing before the IJ in Chicago but applied for asylum and withholding of removal. 

(Yuan also applied for protection under the Convention 

Against Torture, but that claim has been abandoned.) 

In his application Yuan asserted that he feared being arrested or killed by the Chinese government because he opposes the country’s coercive family planning policies. He alleged that in fall 2003 his girlfriend, Ling Lin, who was then 

19 and by law too young to marry, had become pregnant. 

When Lin went to a mandatory exam in January 2004, said 

Yuan, government officials discovered the pregnancy and 

forced her to have an abortion. Six months later Lin skipped 

her required follow-up exam, prompting family planning 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 3

agents to visit Yuan’s home looking for her. Yuan allegedly 

refused to tell the agents where to find his girlfriend because 

he opposed the government’s family planning controls and 

was upset about the forced abortion. Afterward the agents 

continued harassing him, Yuan said, even “coming to my 

workplace and questioning me there.” Yuan said that he 

yelled and cursed at the agents, who warned that he would 

“suffer serious consequences” if he did not bring his girlfriend to them within a month. 

Then a month later, according to the narrative in Yuan’s

application, the family planning agents visited his parents’

grocery store at 10:00 p.m., while his brother was running 

the store. Yuan said he was sleeping in a room above the 

store but went downstairs after hearing noise. Several men 

were present, and Yuan recognized one of them as an agent 

he had argued with at the birth-control office. One man 

yelled, “That’s him,” and then two others struck Yuan on the 

head and hands with “cleavers.” The attackers fled, Yuan 

continued, after his brother ran from the store to get help. 

According to Yuan’s application, his brother summoned 

their parents. When they arrived and saw his condition, 

“they called the police, and the police took me to the 

hospital.” Yuan said he had identified his attacker to his 

brother and the police, who promised to investigate but 

never did, even when pressed by Yuan’s brother and 

parents. Yuan added that his parents had been threatened 

with jail for falsely accusing a government official. Yuan had 

spent two months in the hospital, he said, and then decided 

to flee China. 

Along with his application, Yuan provided letters from 

his brother and parents. His brother’s letter recounts the OcCase: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
4 No. 15-2834

tober 2004 incident at the family’s grocery store. According 

to the letter, a “tall guy” pointed at Yuan and said, “That’s 

him!” prompting the others to begin cutting Yuan with 

knives. After the assailants had left, the brother says, he 

“called the police and my parents to come and hurried my 

brother to Lianjiang County Hospital for emergency care.” 

Later he learned that the “tall guy” was the officer from the 

birth-control office with whom Yuan had argued, but the police refused to believe this and accused the family of falsely

implicating a government employee. The brother’s letter 

states that it took eight months for Yuan to recover. 

The parents’ letter similarly recounts the events of October 1, 2004, “the date when our son was almost killed by the 

attempted murder initiated by the director of the birth control office, Wang Dong Ming.” The parents explain that they 

had hurried to their grocery store after their other son 

phoned, and saw Yuan lying in a pool of blood. Then, the 

letter continues, “We called for help and took him to the 

emergency and saved his life.” Afterward, the parents add, 

they accused Wang of “taking revenge” on Yuan but were 

“not only rejected, but also threatened to be put in jail.” Like 

Yuan’s brother, the parents assert in their letter that it took 

eight months for Yuan to recover from his injuries. 

At his final removal hearing in August 2013, Yuan elaborated on the narrative in his application. He testified that he 

had been working as an artist in a factory when he fell in 

love with Ling Lin, who was studying painting at that same 

factory. Lin had moved in with Yuan and his family, and the 

couple planned to get married as soon as Lin reached the legal age. As he had said earlier in his application for asylum, 

Yuan testified that Lin told him that she had been forced to 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 5

undergo an abortion when her pregnancy was discovered 

during the mandatory exam. Because the child had been 

conceived illegally outside of wedlock, Yuan said, he paid a 

fine of 1,000 RMB, or roughly $150. 

About a month later, Yuan continued, Lin had moved 

out of his family’s home and moved in with her aunt to 

avoid complying with a directive to return for a follow-up 

exam after six months. Lin had skipped the exam, Yuan testified, and then three months later he received a notice saying that his “wife” must appear for her required examination. When Lin again did not appear, said Yuan, several officials including one from the family planning office had confronted him at his home in September 2004 and insisted that 

Lin must show up the following month. Yuan had replied 

that she no longer lived with him (though the men did not 

believe him), and he had yelled at them using “words of anger” and accused them of murdering his child. When the IJ 

asked Yuan about the allegation in his application that

agents had questioned him at his workplace, Yuan answered 

that they had visited the factory once in September 2004 but 

he did not see them personally. The IJ asked why, then, 

Yuan’s personal statement indicates that he had been “questioned” and gotten into a verbal altercation at his workplace, 

and Yuan responded that the argument had occurred when 

the officials visited his home, not the factory. 

The next time Yuan was bothered by government officials, according to his testimony, was on October 1, 2004. 

Just as he had stated in his application, Yuan testified that 

several men—including Wang, whom he recognized from 

the family planning office—had arrived at his parent’s grocery store at 10:00 p.m. and attacked him with knives and a 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
6 No. 15-2834

stick. His brother had run from the grocery to call his mother 

and the police, said Yuan, though it was his mother who had 

summoned the police. Once the police had arrived, he stated, the officers called an ambulance that took him to the 

hospital. His brother and mother had followed the ambulance to the hospital, he explained, but did not drive him 

themselves. Yuan maintained that he still has scars on his 

head and hands, but when he tried showing them to the IJ 

and government counsel, the IJ noted for the record that she 

“really” could not “tell what it is.” 

Once at the hospital, said Yuan, he had received stitches 

and an IV. Later on, he said, doctors had taken an X-ray of 

his hand and discovered a severed nerve and a “cracked” 

bone (though he could not remember if he was given a cast). 

When government counsel asked what solution was in the 

IV, Yuan answered that he thought “some of them” were 

“proteins” because he had lost “a lot of blood.” The 

government’s lawyer then demanded to know why Yuan

had not mentioned in his personal statement or testimony 

that he had received a blood transfusion and surgery, both 

of which are documented in a medical report Yuan had 

offered into evidence. Yuan first responded, “They just give 

stitches,” and then said, “Right here, the nerve has cut.” 

When the government’s attorney pressed him to say 

whether the medical report was incorrect, Yuan replied, “I 

do not know.” 

The government’s attorney also questioned Yuan about 

his brother’s whereabouts. Yuan acknowledged that his 

brother, too, had been smuggled into the United States and 

said he was living in Chicago. Asked by counsel if they lived 

together, Yuan said, “No.” When the IJ then joined the quesCase: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 7

tioning and asked Yuan where his brother was, Yuan responded, “Right now, I do not know.” The IJ repeated the 

question, and this time Yuan insisted that he did not know 

where his brother was, that they talk by phone very seldom, 

and that he hadn’t spoken to his brother in about a month. 

Again the IJ asked if Yuan’s brother lived with him in Indiana, and this time Yuan replied, “I don’t know where he 

working right now.” After more questioning, Yuan finally 

acknowledged that his brother did live with him in Indiana, 

but explained:

I will hear that you ask where he is right now personally, so physically where he is right now. I don’t 

know where he is physically right now you know. 

He working here and there you know. Like me, I 

some time working here and there. 

... .

Yes, yes. We—he live with me but working, he 

been working here. He working out of states. He 

working other place.

Yuan maintained that he had not spoken to his brother in 

“quite awhile,” and said that no one had told him he should 

bring his brother to the hearing to testify on his behalf or 

that he should update the address in China he included for 

his brother in his asylum application. 

The IJ denied all relief, reasoning that Yuan had testified 

inconsistently on at least four points and thus wasn’t credible. The IJ explained that, first, Yuan had not disclosed in his 

personal statement or testimony that he underwent surgery 

and received a blood transfusion in addition to the IV and 

stitches. Second, the IJ noted, Yuan had said in his personal 

statement that the police took him to the hospital but then 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
8 No. 15-2834

testified that an ambulance had been called. The IJ added 

that the letter from Yuan’s brother says, according to the IJ, 

that he took Yuan to the hospital. Third, concerning the alleged harassment by agents from the family planning office, 

the IJ asserted that Yuan’s testimony that agents had questioned him at his house contradicted his written account that 

agents went to his place of employment and questioned him 

there. The IJ noted that in his testimony Yuan had said the 

agents spoke only with his supervisor, not him, during a 

workplace visit. And fourth, the IJ singled out Yuan’s conflicting answers to questions about his brother’s whereabouts, first denying that he knew where to find him, then 

admitting that they shared a residence in Indiana.

The IJ further reasoned that Yuan had not introduced adequate evidence to corroborate his claim. The IJ particularly 

was troubled by the absence of an affidavit from Ling Lin. 

The IJ also characterized Yuan’s corroborating evidence as 

conflicting and vague: In the IJ’s view, Yuan’s medical evidence contradicts his personal statement and testimony; his 

brother’s letter misled the court into believing that he still 

lived in China; and his parents’ letter does not mention Lin, 

the harassment at Yuan’s workplace, or the medical treatment Yuan had received at the hospital. 

The Board upheld the IJ’s decision, reasoning that there 

was “no clear error” in the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. 

And without credible testimony, the Board concluded, the 

petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board did not consider the IJ’s alternative conclusion that Yuan’s claim failed for 

lack of corroboration. 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 9

II. Analysis

The parties seem uncertain about the scope of our review. Yuan avoids taking a position, instead stating the obvious point that sometimes we review the Board’s decision 

and other times, the IJ’s decision. The government asserts 

that we should “primarily” review the Board’s decision and 

further implies that, if the IJ’s decision is reviewed at all, we 

should limit ourselves to the portion specifically addressed 

by the Board (i.e., the adverse credibility finding). In fact, 

since the Board endorsed the IJ’s reasoning but did not 

adopt the decision itself, we technically review only the 

Board’s standalone opinion. See Moab v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 

656, 659 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Krasilych v. Holder, 583 F.3d 

962, 966 (7th Cir. 2009). 

Factual findings and credibility determinations must be 

supported by substantial evidence, Lishou Wang v. Lynch, 804 

F.3d 855, 858 (7th Cir. 2015); Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725, 

727 (7th Cir. 2015), while legal conclusions are reviewed 

de novo, Lishou Wang, 804 F.3d at 858; Antia-Perea v. Holder, 

768 F.3d 647, 658–59 (7th Cir. 2014). Yuan’s application was 

filed after enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005, see Pub. L. 

No. 109–13, 119 Stat 231, under which an adverse credibility 

finding may rest on any inconsistency, whether or not it

“goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). But the Board and IJs still must distinguish between inconsistencies that are material and those 

that are trivial. See Tawuo, 799 F.3d at 727; Krishnapillai v. 

Holder, 563 F.3d 606, 616–17 (7th Cir. 2009). And reasonable 

explanations for discrepancies must be considered. Tarraf v. 

Gonzales, 495 F.3d 525, 532 (7th Cir. 2007).

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
10 No. 15-2834

In finding that Yuan was not credible, the Board focused 

on the same four points of inconsistency as the IJ: the scope 

of Yuan’s injuries and medical treatment, Yuan’s transportation to the hospital after the attack, harassment at Yuan’s 

workplace, and the whereabouts of Yuan’s brother. We address each point in turn.

A. Scope of Yuan’s injuries and medical treatment

Yuan first challenges the Board’s assertion that his testimony about his injuries and treatment after the October 2004 

attack contradicts his personal statement and the medical 

evidence. The IJ had characterized this purported inconsistency as the “most important[]” reason for the adverse 

finding, but Yuan argues that his explanation for not fully 

recalling and describing his injuries and treatment—his head 

injury—was never considered. He further argues that his 

testimony was “not limited to his claim to have received an 

IV and stitches” and that he “described in detail much of the 

additional treatment he required,” leaving no material inconsistency between his testimony and his statement and 

medical documentation. 

We don’t see the “inconsistency” between the medical 

report and Yuan’s testimony and personal statement. We 

note that neither the government nor the Board ever 

suggested that the medical record is fabricated, and unless the 

mention of “surgery” and a “blood transfusion” in that 

report is untrue, the situation really amounts to a claimant 

not fully appreciating the extent of his injuries or the precise 

medical treatment he received. Why does this imprecision 

matter? It might be a different situation if Yuan was accused 

of exaggerating his injuries at the hands of the family 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 11

planning agents, but how would he benefit by minimizing 

those injuries?

Regardless, Yuan’s testimony that physicians had to 

“open” up his hand “and find the veins” because a bone had 

been cracked and a nerve severed essentially describes a 

“surgery.” And as for omitting the “blood transfusion,” 

Yuan did explain that he received an IV (which he believed 

contained “proteins”) because he had lost a lot of blood. That 

Yuan may not have known the content of the fluids he was 

receiving intravenously does not undermine his credibility. 

Rather, there are several potential explanations, such as his 

head injury (which rendered him unconscious for at least 

some of the time he was hospitalized), his lack of 

sophistication about medical procedures, and the translation 

of both the medical report and Yuan’s testimony from 

Chinese to English. See Lishou Wang, 804 F.3d at 858 

(concluding that IJ had improperly discredited petitioner’s 

testimony based on his “innocent confusion” over name of 

medical procedure even though petitioner’s description of 

procedure was consistent throughout his testimony); 

Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 

2009) (rejecting as neither plausible nor material Board’s 

finding of inconsistency between petitioner’s use of word 

“truck” in his application and “car” in his testimony and 

noting that petitioner’s words had been translated to English 

on both occasions). In fact, when the subject of his treatment 

came up in the first hearing, Yuan stated that he “couldn’t 

say what kind of treatment ... they gave me because I’m, I’m 

not educated enough to understand.” Yuan’s description of 

the treatment he received is not inconsistent with how a lay 

person might describe a blood transfusion (receiving an IV 

of proteins for loss of blood) or minor surgery (cutting open 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
12 No. 15-2834

a hand and giving stitches), nor did the Board or IJ grapple 

with any of these potential explanations. 

B. Yuan’s transportation to the hospital after the attack

Yuan next argues that the Board mischaracterized the 

record in finding that his testimony was inconsistent with 

his documentary evidence regarding how he arrived at the 

hospital after his injury. Once again, it is difficult to see any 

significant inconsistency; there is no disagreement by the 

government that Yuan was transported to the hospital 

by someone. In his personal statement Yuan says that 

“the police” took him to the hospital, and when he testified 

he said that an ambulance was called for him. As Yuan argues, whether the police or an ambulance took him to the 

hospital is irrelevant in light of his larger claim that he was 

beaten and slashed by agents from the birth-control office, 

prompting his brother and mother to call the police for help. 

See Kueviakoe, 567 F.3d at 1305 (noting that use of inconsistent terms to describe police vehicle was immaterial, especially where “all of the other pertinent information remained 

the same”).

Moreover, the IJ wrongly asserted that the letters from 

Yuan’s brother and parents further contradict his accounts of 

how he reached the hospital. According to the IJ, Yuan’s 

brother said that he took Yuan to the hospital, but, in fact, 

Yuan’s brother wrote, “I called the police and my parents to 

come and hurried my brother to Lianjiang County Hospital 

for emergency care.” Yuan’s parents similarly stated, “We 

called for help and took him to the emergency aid and saved 

his life.” Both of these letters have been translated from Chinese to English, so we think the IJ should have been cautious 

about an overly technical parsing of language. See Kueviakoe,

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 13

567 F.3d at 1305 (noting that no important inconsistency 

could be found based on word choice when petitioner’s 

words were translated from French to English). In their letters neither Yuan’s brother nor his parents state that they 

personally drove Yuan to the hospital. Rather, the statements suggest that the family simply made sure that Yuan 

was taken to the hospital—a reading that is consistent with 

Yuan’s explanation that his family called the police, who 

summoned the ambulance, and then the family followed the 

ambulance as it transported Yuan to the hospital. Once 

again, the salient point is that no one disputes that Yuan’s

injuries required emergency hospitalization. That greater detail is provided in live testimony than was included in an 

asylum application is not a reason to reject a petitioner’s testimony as not credible. See Tarraf v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 525, 

532 (7th Cir. 2007); Kllokoqi v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 336, 342 

(7th Cir. 2005) 

C. Yuan’s statements about harassment by authorities at his

workplace

Yuan next challenges the Board’s conclusion that his testimony regarding harassment by family planning agents at 

his workplace was inconsistent with his personal statement. 

The third paragraph of Yuan’s personal statement, as 

amended during the final hearing, reads as follows:

However, in September 2004, agents came again to 

my home to check why she didn’t go to her examination. When they couldn’t find her they came to 

me to find out where she went, but I refused to tell 

them as I was opposed to the government’s coercive family controls and I was upset over what they 

did to my fiancée. The agents believed that I knew 

where she was and although they left that day, they 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
14 No. 15-2834

continued to harass me by coming to my workplace 

and questioning me there as well. I became angry 

with them because my girlfriend’s issue had nothing to do with me and then I accused them of killing my child and now maybe they want to kill my 

fiancée, too. They cursed me and I cursed them 

back. Then they warned me that if I did not bring 

her to them in a month that I would suffer serious 

consequences.

Yuan argues that his testimony at the hearing—that he 

had not actually spoken to the officials when they came to 

his workplace and that his account of becoming angry and 

cursing the officials referred to their visit to his home, not his 

workplace—clarified, rather than contradicted, his personal 

statement. Given the placement of the reference to the workplace visit in the middle of a paragraph that primarily is 

about the officials’ visit to his home, it seems plausible that 

the cursing and yelling describes what happened at his 

home, not work. Moreover, we don’t perceive an inconsistency between saying, “Government officials harassed me 

by coming to my work and asking questions,” and Yuan’s 

explanation. We can easily imagine a worker describing as 

harassment the presence of government officials at his 

workplace asking about him. Even if the ambiguity is resolved as an inconsistency, the inconsistency cannot support 

a general finding that Yuan isn’t credible. See Hongting Liu v. 

Lynch, 788 F.3d 737, 742 (7th Cir. 2015) (concluding that petitioner’s technically inconsistent testimony regarding timing 

of her visa and passport applications did not support adverse credibility finding). 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15-2834 15

D. Yuan’s testimony about his brother’s whereabouts

Last, Yuan contends that the fourth inconsistency 

identified by the IJ—the whereabouts of his brother—was 

explained by his testimony that he believed he was being 

asked where his brother was at that moment rather than 

where his brother was living. Yuan does not argue that his 

testimony was consistent, and for good reason. His 

testimony on this point is confusing, if not blatantly 

inconsistent. While this may be the strongest evidence 

supporting a finding that Yuan was not entirely credible as a 

witness, the Board did not make any effort to explain why 

Yuan’s evasiveness about his brother was sufficiently 

material to warrant discrediting his entire claim for relief.

See Hongting Liu, 788 F.3d at 742; see also Krishnapillai, 

563 F.3d at 617 (noting obligation, even after REAL ID Act, 

to distinguish between inconsistencies that are material and 

those that are not); Kadia, 501 F.3d at 822 (same). And, as

Yuan argues, his explanation was not even considered. At 

least a plausible reading of the hearing transcript is that 

Yuan was confused about what exactly he was being asked, 

and his responses indicate that while his brother technically 

lived with him in Indiana, he often left their home for 

lengthy periods to seek employment elsewhere. 

Finally, Yuan argues that the Board erred as a matter of 

law by not considering the corroborating evidence he presented. Yuan also disputes the IJ’s faulting him for not 

providing a letter from his girlfriend. Since the Board did not 

address the IJ’s finding regarding corroborating evidence, 

we will not assess that question in the first instance. Indeed, 

the government has specifically asked that, if we overturn 

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16
16 No. 15-2834

the adverse credibility finding, we remand the case to the 

agency to assess Yuan’s eligibility on the merits. 

III. Conclusion

We conclude that the purported inconsistencies regarding Yuan’s injuries and time in the hospital, his method of 

transportation to the hospital, and whether or not government officials questioned him at his workplace are either so 

easily explained or so trivial as to call into doubt the Board’s 

decision. And even though Yuan acknowledges that his testimony regarding his brother’s whereabouts was inconsistent, this lone inconsistency is not sufficiently material to 

warrant an adverse credibility finding under the REAL ID 

Act. Thus the petition for review is GRANTED.

Case: 15-2834 Document: 24 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pages: 16