W e grante d p eti ti one r’s un opp osed m oti on to waive oral  ar gum en t
. T hu s, the pe t i t i on f or r evi ew i s s ubm i t t ed o n the b ri efs an d re co rd

. S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 34 (f).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3673 Y AN L IN, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A98 997 626
S UB MI TT ED J UNE 29, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 30, 2011 

Befo re C OFFEY, F LA UM, an d M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Ya n L inlefth er h om e in Ch i na’ s F uj i an pro vi nce t o see k a syl u m in t he U ni ted S ta t e s b a s e d o n a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t f a mi l y - p l a n n i ng2 N o. 10

- 3673 author i ti es f or ced herto have a n abo rt i on. A n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge (“ IJ ”) deni ed the appli cati on, co ncl ud i ng tha t, al th o ug h Li n c r edibl y t es ti fi ed to ha vinga n abo r ti o n, s he f ai l ed to es tabl i sh thati t was i nvol untary
. The IJ ’ s ass es sm ent of Lin’ s cre dibi l i ty turned on Lin’ s subm i ssion o f hospi talcer ti fi cate s that purpor te dlydocum ented her f or ced abo rt i on, w hi ch, he c oncl ud ed, sugg est ed that th e p r o c e du r e wa s a c t u a l l y v o l u n t a r y . T h e B o a r d o fI mm i gr ati on Ap peal s a ffi rm ed that deci sion. I t a gr eed wi ththe IJ tha t, abs en t o th ere vi den ce e xpl aini ngthe ce r ti fi ca te s, o urr ea so ni ngin H ua ng v. G o nz a les , 45 3 F. 3d 942 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , a case wh i ch als o i nvol ved the v al i dity o fa Ch i nese abor ti on ce rt i fi cate , j usti fi ed th e advers e cr edibi l i tyfi ndi ng . W e co nc l ude tha t th e Age nc y o ve r st at ed o urho l di ngi n H uan ga nd i n do i ngso provi ded an incom ple te and unsup port ed ass ess m ent o f L i n ’ s c r e d ib i l i t y . We th e r e f o r e g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. Ath e r h e a r i n gb e f o r e th e IJ, L i n d e s c r ib e d th e c i r c u mst an c es lea d in g t o h er ab or tio n . Sh e t es t i f i ed th at, in 1992 wh en she was 20 yea rs o l d, she m ove d i n w i th her boyfrie n d and soon becam e pr egnant. S he deci ded to keep the ba by even thou gh Ch inese law f orbad e un m arri ed w om en to have chi l dren, and aftera few m onths, Lin’ s par ents w er e warn ed that thei r sal ar i es w oul d be cut i f Lin re fused to ter m i nate the pregnan c y. Despit e th i s th r ea t, Li n s ti l l want ed to k ee p the b ab y, s o s he too k s i ck l eave fr om h ero w n j ob at a m ovi e theate r a nd mo v e d t o the c o un t r ysi de t o s t a y wi th he r g r a nd

m othe r. But thes e e ff or ts to evade author i ti es w er e unsucc es sfu l; fou r fam ily-p lan n in g off ice rs d isc ov er ed L in at h e r gra n d m ot h er ’s h ou se w h en sh e w as n ea rly sixN o. 10

- 3673 3

m onths pregnant. S he tr i ed to fl ee, a nd wh en thatf ai l ed sh e beg g ed th e o ffi ce r s to l ea ve he r a l o ne . The o fficers i gnor ed herpl eas a n d for ced herto acc om pany them to a h o s pi t a l tha twa s ab o uta n hour f r o m he r g r a nd

m oth er’s h om e. A t the hosp ital, doc tors ex am ined her, and she was then l ock ed ove rni ght in a r oo m with oth er wom en. The next m or ni ng so m eone atthe hospi tal f or ced Lin onto an o perat i ng tabl e an d g ave her an i nj ecti on in herst om ach. S om eti m e the next day she bega n to exp erience cont r a c t ion s, an d after hou rs of labor, the pr em atur e baby w as sti l lbor n. H erf am i l y t oo k her hom e tw o da ys later. Lin a l so tol d the IJ abo ut the em ot i onaland physi cal c on se q u en c es of h er ab or tio n . Sh e t es tifie d ab ou t d eb ili ta tingde pr es si o n, s tr aine d pe r so na l r el at i o ns hi ps, a nd an ina b ility t o k ee p a st ea d y job. A lth ou gh th e IJ w oul d concl ud e o ther w ise , Li n tes ti fi ed that she was not al l owed to r etur n to her job atthe m ovi e theate r after the ab ortion. A nd her situa tion d e teriorated m ore b eg in ni ng i n 199 7 when she exper i enced an e cto pic preg nan c y, w hi ch she say s doct or s a ttr ibuted to a m i sta ke i n the abor ti on pro cedure five y ear s e ar l i er . A t that po i nt she l ear ned that i t would be di ffi cul t forherto have chi l dren i n the fu tu re; with thi s news, herbo yf ri end abandoned her, and potent i alsuitor s r efused to considerm ar ry i ng her

. These eve nts, Li n sai d, prom pted her to see k a syl um i n the U ni ted S tat es. Lin co rr obo ra ted her cl ai m o fa f or ced abo rt i on with tw o types ofev i dence. S h e at ta ched a l ett erfro m her mo th e r c o n fi r mi n gh e r v e r s i o n o fe v e n t s a s we l l a s t wo4 N o. 10

- 3673 do cument s th ats he s ai d wer e i ss ue d bythe ho spi ta l

. One o f t h ose d ocu m en ts w as an outp atient m ed ical record f r o m the Li anj i an gCoun ty Re d Cr o ss Hos pi ta l s ta ting th at th e proc ed ure w as “d ue to pregn an c y w it h ou t m arriage. ” The o therdocum ent was a “dis eas e ce rt i fi cate ” bearing insi gni a fro m the sam e ho spi tal, st ati ng tha t her “dia gnos i s” w as abor ti on. N ei therdocum ent s peci fi es w hetherthe p rocedure w as vol untary ; theym er el y s tat e th at Li n ha d an ab o r ti o n an d r ec o m m en d tw o m o nths ofbed r est
. Li n tes ti fi ed that the ho spi talsuppli ed these docum ents as a m at ter o fco urse , noto n re quest, whe n s he wa s di s c ha r g e d. I n r es po ns e t o the se ho spi ta l do cument s, the g o ve r nm en t s u bm itted the Stat e D ep artm en t’s 2007 cou nt ry pr o fi l e o fChi ne se a sy l um c l ai m s. Tha t pr o fi l e sa y s th e U ni ted S tat es E m b as sy i s “ unaw ar e o fany so- cal l ed

‘ ab o r t i o n c e r t i fi c a t e s ’ ” a n d th a t i t kn o ws o f no c i r c u mst ance where Ch i nese w om en r ecei ved cer ti fi cate s a fter a f or ced abo rt i on. I t a dd s that “ [ a]cco rdi ng to Em bass y o ffi ci al s, the o nl y do cument th atmightr es embl e an d be c onfused w i th such a cer ti fi cat e is a docum ent i ssued by h osp itals up on a p atient ’s requ est a ft e r a vol un tary ab o r tio n .” T h at ce rt ifica te , th e re p or t e x p lain s, w ou ld ai d a Chines e wom an’ s r equest f ortim e aw ay f ro m wor kf o l l o wi nga v o l unt ar y abo r ti o n. T he IJ d en ied L in’s requ est for asylum after dete rm i ni ng tha t s he was not enti re l y c re dibl e. H e no ted that, al though Li n’s te sti m ony that sh e h ad an abo rt i on w as “100 per cent accura te” a n d h erdescr i pti on o fher re lat ion sh ip w ith h er bo yfr ien d w as “e x tr em ely c r e d i-N o. 10

- 3673 5 bl e, ” he no ne th el es s di sb el i ev ed her cont en ti o n tha t th e p r o ce dur e was i nv o l unt ar y . The IJ c o nc l ude d tha t he w as co m p elle d to d isr eg ar d L in ’s o th er w ise cr ed ible testim ony becau se sh e had sub m it t ed an ab ortion certifi cate from the hospi talthatper f or m ed the proce du re . The IJ r eas oned thatthe cer ti fi cate , wh en co up l ed by th e State D ep artm en t’s un d erstan d ing tha t s uc h ce rti fi cate s e xi st onl y in case s o fvo lu ntar y abor ti ons, dest r o y ed th e cr edibi l i tyo fLi n’ s as ser ti o n tha t th e ab or tio n w as forc e d

. T h e IJ als o fou n d th at L inco u ld ha ve r etur ne d t o her po si ti o n a t th e m o vi e th ea te r a nd add ed thi s f acto r as furtherev i dence t h at Lin’ s abor ti on w as vo lu n ta ry . A n d m os t s ign ifica n tly , th e IJ told L in that, ev en tho ugh he di dn ’ t want to s en d h erbac k t o Ch i na, he ha d to deny herr equest for a sy lum “a s a m at te r o fl aw” be cau se o fo urde ci si o n in H ua ng, w hi ch th e IJ th o u gh t “ d ire c tly co n tr ad ict ed ” h er cla im . In H uan gthe IJ r el i ed on a si m i l arabo rt i on ce rt ifica te and the s am e co m m ents f ro m the St ate Departm ent a s the b asi s ford iscredi ti ng the peti ti oner ’ s t est i m ony that hi s wi fe ha d b ee n s ubj ec te d t o an inv o l unt ar y abo r ti o n. H uan g, 4 53 F
. 3d at9 44
. W e uphe l d the de ci si o n a nd reason ed that the ab ortion certifi cate and the cou nt ry pr o fi l e to g ethe r pr o vi ded su bs tant i ve e vi den ce tha t th e abor tio n w as not f or ced and that “w i thout add i ti onal co r r o bo r at i nge vi den ce , the IJ was e nt i tl ed to fi nd [ th e peti ti oner ’ s] te sti m ony i m pla usibl e. ” Id. at 947. Th e B oa rd affi rm ed the denia l o fLi n’s appli cati on f or as ylu m . I t d id n ot r e l y o n t h e IJ’s fin d in gs th at L inco u ld retu rn to he r previou s j ob a t the m ovie thea ter (a co r r ec t dec i si o n s i nc e th e IJ ’ s co nc l us i o n on th is po i nt6 N o. 10

- 3673 ap p ea rs to st em from a m isu n d e r s t a n d in g of L in ’s t es tim o ny ) , b uti t di d a g r ee wi ththe IJ tha t th e reason i ng i n H uan gsupporte d the adver se cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ng. T h e B oa rd als o e n d or se d th e IJ’s d ec isio n b ec au se L in f ai l ed to “p ro vide adequate cor robor ati ng ev i dence to c on tr ad ict th e 2 00 7 p ro file.” L i n ’s o ve ra rc h in g c on te n tio n on ap p ea l is th at th e IJ err ed i n c o nc l udi ngtha t o urde ci si o n in H uan g r e qui re d th e d en ial of h e r a p p lica tio n for a sy lu m . L inp rim ar ily chal l enges the IJ’s anal ysi s, but the Boa rd adopted an d s uppl ement ed th atde cisi o n, s o we r ev i ew b o th

. Su rga no va v. Ho lder, 612 F.3d 90 1, 904 (7th Cir. 2010). L in’s clai m i s f u nd am en tally a ch all en ge to the A gen cy’s ad ve rs e c re d ibilit y fin d in g, w h ich w e m u st d efe r to if i t i s “s uppo r te d by spe ci fi c, co g en t r ea so ns th at bear a l egi ti m ate nexus t o the fi nd i ng. ” To ure v. H o lder, 62 4 F. 3d 422, 42 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( i nter nal ci tat i on and quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). The cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ng f ai l s to sat i sfy e ven thi s hi ghl y defer enti alst andard beca use it i s ba se d on an in ac c u ra te u n d er st an d in g o fc i r c u it p re c ed en t. See To rres v. M uk a sey, 551 F. 3d 616 , 626 ( 7th C ir. 2008). W e s tar t with the IJ ’ s deci si on. Li ke the Boa rd, we set as id e t h e IJ’s e rro n eo u s c on c lu sio n th at L inw as ab le to re turn t o her j ob at t h e m ovi e theate r afterher ab or tio n be c au se n ot h in g in th e r e c or d su p p or ts th is concl usi on; the onl y t est i m ony w as to the c ontr ar y. Once we s e t a s i de thi s c o nc l us i o n, the o nl y r e mai ningr eas on th e IJ g av e f o r di sb el i ev i ngLin’ s cl aim w as tha t o ur dec i si o n in H uan g com pel l ed hi m to d o so . But thatN o. 10

- 3673 7

re as on ca n n otbe ch ar ac t e r i ze d as “c og en t” be c au se it o ve r st at es the ho l di ngi n H ua ng . A lth ou gh w e u p h eld in H uan g the IJ ’ s deci si on t o conside r an abo rt i on ce rt i fi cate as substa nti ve evi dence thatco uld adve rs ely affect an a pp l i c a nt ’ s c r e dib i l i t y, tha tde c i s i o n wa s n o ta n e di ct re quir i ng an advers e cr edib il i ty fi nd i ng i n eve rycas e in vo lvin g a n ab or tio n c e r t ifica te . In fac t, w e e x p licit ly allow ed f orthe possibi l i ty that the ne gat i ve i nfe re nce ofthe cer ti fi cate s co uld be o ver com e with “addit i onal c or ro b or at in g e vid e n c e .” H uan g, 45 3 F
. 3d a t9 4 7
. As an exam ple o fthe type of e vidence that m i ght s uffi ce, w e n ot ed th at H u an g , w h o se w ife h ad alleg ed ly s uffe r e d a n i nv o l un t a r y ab o r t i o n, w oul d h a v e h a d a “st ro ngerand m or e s ustai nabl e” cl ai m i f he had provi ded a s up port i ng affida vit f ro m hi s wife, wh o w oul d have ha d fi r st
- ha nd kno wl edg e o fthe abo r ti o n. Id. Th us , i ns t e a d o fv i ew i ng H uan g as a deci si on m anda t i ngan a dvers e cr edibi lityfi nd i ng i n Lin’ s ca se, the IJ sho u ld h ave tr eat ed i t a s a n i nvi tat i on t o ass ess whethe r Li n, de spi te he r fi r st
- ha nd kno w ledg e o fthe ci rcum sta nces ofhero w n abo rt ion , c oul d be r equi re d to p rovide ad d iti ona l p r o o f t ha t she suffered a f orced aborti on. Of cour se, the IJ di dn ’ t nee d such an i nvi tat i on because , under the REA L I D A ct, P u b. L. N o. 10 9- 13, 11 9 St at. 23 1 (20 05 ) , he was per m i tte d to re quir e Li n to supp l y c or robor ati ng ev id en c e as l ong as the e vi dence w as re aso nabl y obtainabl e. See 8 U
. S. C

. § 1158(b)(1)( B )( ii ); K rishn a pil la i v . Ho lder, 563 F.3d 606 , 618 (7th C ir. 2009). B es id es h er ow n d et ac h ed an d ap p ar en tly cr ed ible te st im ony on th e m a t ter, L in d id p rovide one p iece of corr o bo r at i o n in the f o r m o fa l et te r fr o m he r mothe r, b ut8 N o. 10

- 3673 the IJ f ai l ed to acknow l ed ge t h i s e vi dence orco nsi der w hat a dd i ti onali nfo rm ati on Li n m i ght r eas onably have su p p li ed

. Th is sh ortcom ing in the IJ ’s analysis app ears to ste m fro m the m i sta ken i m press ion t h at, i n l i ght o f H uan g, no am ount o fco rr obo ra ti on would have bee n suffici ent t o re but the nega ti ve i nfe re nce o fthe abor ti on cer ti fi cate
. T he IJ’ s rote ap p li cation of H uan g to Lin ’s c as e is al so probl em ati c be cause i t s ugges ts th at an IJ m ay base an a d v e r s e c r e d ib i l i t y fi n d i n go n c o u n t r y r e p o r t s a l o n e . We hav e r e pe a t e dl y c o nd e mne d thi s s o r t o f o v e r - r e l i a nc e o n ge n er aliz ed st at em en ts of co u n tr y c on d itio n s. S e e, e . g. , B ace v. A shcroft, 352 F
. 3d 11 33 , 1 13 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( ca uti oni ng ag ai nst use o fge nera l i zed r ep or ts to contr adic t w itn es s’s sp ec ific t es tim on y); G a l i n a v . INS , 2 13 F. 3d 955, 958- 59 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( concl ud i ng tha t a gencyer re d i n gi vin g c oncl usi ve w ei ght t o St ate Departm ent r eport )

. H er e, Li n cor re ctl y points o ut thatthe St at e D epar tmentc anno t compre he ns i ve l y a ss es s co ndi ti o ns thr o ugho utCh i na, s o the Emb a s s y ’ s l a c ko ff a mi l i a r i ty wi th any h o spi ta l i ss ui ngabo r ti o n c er ti fi ca te s f o l l o wi ng a f or ced abo rt i on ca nnot r ule o ut the exi ste nce ofsuch a pra cti ce, part i cul ar l y dating ba ck to 1992
. Our d eci si on i n H uan g ackn ow ledge s this li m itation in th e cou nt ry re port s. W e no ted thatthe re port s a re “no t a s wel l -re sea rche d ori nfo rm ati ve as w e m i gh t w i sh, ” but noneth el es s r ec o g ni ze d the i r us eful ne ss as ev i den ce t en di ng to su ggest th at “ a c e rtificate sh ow s only a volun tary abortion

. ” 453 F.3d at 947. B u t t ha t is allthe rep ort is

— evi den ce . Nei th erthe c o unt r y r epo r t no r o ur dec i si o n in Hu a n g t o u p hold an IJ ’s use of the cou nt ryN o. 10

- 3673 9 rep ort can be suffi cient to d estroy an asyl u m ap p li can t’s c r e d i b ility as a m at te r of law . B ec au se th e IJ m ist ak en ly at tr ibu te d th is lev el of s ign ifica n c e t o ou r d ec isio n in H uan gand , by ext en sion, to the State D ep artm en t’s r epo r t, we c a n n o tc o n c l u d e th a th i s c r e d ib i l i t y fi n di ng w as supp or ted bysubst anti alev i dence. T h e B oa rd ’s d ec isio n d oe s n ot h in g t o m at er ially change our vi ew o fthe IJ ’ s o ver al l cred ibili ty fi nd i ng. The Board a dopt ed the IJ ’ s r eas oni ng, and added that th e a d ve rs e c re d ibilit y fin d in g w as j u st ified be c au se L in f ai l ed to pro vi de cor robor ati ng ev i dence to co ntra dict the S tat e D ep ar tm ent’ s inter preta ti on o fthe abor ti on cer tifica te. But as w e a l l ud ed to abo ve, the Board m ay r e qu i r e c o r r o b o r a t i o n o nl y wh e n i ti s r e a s o nab l e t o do so . Kris hnap i l l ai, 56 3 F.3 d at61 8. H er e, Li n prov i ded an a ffi d a v i tfr o m a f a mi l y me mb e r t o c o r r o b o r a t e h e ro wn te st im on y. W e c an n ote n v i sio n oth er rea d ily av aila b le evid en ce th at m ight h a v e h elped prov e the f orced natu re of h er ab or tio n, esp ec ially w h en th e IJ fou n d h er te st im ony about her str enuous eff or ts to avo i d the ab orti on as b eingc r edibl e. Al so, the Bo ar d di d no t i den ti fy a ny su che vi den ce tha t i t f o und l ackin g. I n o r dert o de ny L in’s clai m f or asylum based on a lack of su ffici en t corr o b o ration (beyon d the m oth er’s l etter), th e B oard needed to both expla i n w hy i t was r eas onabl e t o expect furthercorro b orati on a nd acc ount f orLi n’s f ai l ure to p ro vid e it
. Ta nd ia v. G o nz a les , 487 F. 3d 1048 , 1054

- 55 (7th Cir

. 2 0 0 7 )

. Ne i the r the Bo a r d n o r the IJ c o ns i de r e d e i ther ofthes e f acto rs , so the Board’ s a dd i ti onalr eas oni ng tha t Lin f ai l ed to co rr obo ra te her cl ai m i s ins u ffici ent t o j u s t i fy th e d e c i s i o n t o d e n y a s y l u m.10 N o. 10

- 3673 Because the A gency ’ s cr edibi litydeter m i nati on was b ase d excl usi vel y o n an o ver -bro ad und er sta nd i ng o f o urde ci si o n in Huang, we cannot up hol d the deni alo f a s y l u m a s b e i n gs u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l ev i d e n c e . We ther ef or e V ACA TE the Bo a r d’ s o r de r a nd R EMA ND f or a fre sh as ses sm ent o fLi n’s cr edibi l i ty.

8- 30- 11