[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15531

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A206-145-471

FU FENG LIN, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(October 25, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Fu Feng Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision 

affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal 

under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or 

Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The immigration judge and the 

Board of Immigration Appeals found that Lin’s testimony was too conclusory and

lacked corroboration to establish that he was a refugee who had been persecuted 

based on his religious activities. Lin described two incidents in which he was 

arrested, abused, and imprisoned by Chinese officials for participating in 

unregistered churches. Lin also submitted letters that confirmed his version of 

events and official reports stating that local officials persecuted members of 

unregistered churches. Because Lin’s testimony was sufficiently detailed and was 

corroborated by his documentary evidence to support his application for relief, we 

grant Lin’s petition and remand for the agency to consider whether the harms 

inflicted on Lin constituted persecution and whether there is a reasonable 

possibility that he will singled out for persecution if he returns to China.

We review the decision of the Board to determine whether it “is supported 

by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a 

whole.” Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2013). “Under this 

standard, reversal requires finding ‘that the record not only supports reversal, but 

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2 of 7 
3

compels it.’” Id. (quoting Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th 

Cir. 2003)). We review de novo the legal conclusions of the Board. Mendoza, 327 

F.3d at 1287 n.6. Because the Board adopts the findings of the immigration judge, 

we review the decision of the immigration judge. Shi, 707 F.3d at 1234.

An alien must prove that he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. 

The alien’s testimony may be sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof if his 

testimony “is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to 

demonstrate that [he] is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). To be a refugee, 

the alien must have a well-founded fear that he will face persecution upon removal 

to his native country on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion. Id. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1), 

1231(b)(3). If “the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide 

evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be 

provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably 

obtain the evidence.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).

An alien who provides testimony that is credible, consistent with his written 

application, and contains details about his persecution need not produce 

corroborating evidence to establish that he is a refugee. See Niftaliev v. United 

States Attorney General, 504 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2007). In Niftaliev, the alien’s 

graphic description of the systematic discrimination and abuse inflicted by 

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 3 of 7 
4

Ukrainian officials established that he suffered past persecution on account of his 

ethnicity and political activities. Id. at 1217. Niftaliev, who had been ostracized 

and penalized for being part Azerbaijani and part Ukrainian, was mistreated by 

government officials for protesting the national mistreatment of minorities. Id. at 

1213–14. Niftaliev substantiated his claim of persecution by describing, consistent 

with his application, protests, beatings, arrests, searches, interrogations, being 

imprisoned for 15 days during which he was given little food or water and 

threatened with being shot, and continuing to be stalked, threatened, and assaulted

after relocating to Argentina. Id. at 1214, 1217.

The record compels that we reverse the finding that Lin’s testimony was too 

conclusory to establish that he was a refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).

Consistent with his application, Lin testified extensively about twice being

arrested, beaten, detained, and intimidated by Chinese officials because of his 

participation in unregistered Christian house churches. Lin testified that, on 

November 20, 2012, seven police officers barged into a church service in Hua 

Chen’s home, shoved Lin and the other participants to the ground, handcuffed and 

searched them, and transported them to a police station. Lin recounted that two 

interrogating officers said there was no “ghost or God” and accused him of 

participating in an “evil cult,” that he was imprisoned for five days in a detention 

facility, and that he feared contacting members of his disbanded church, so he 

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 4 of 7 
5

prayed in secret. And Lin recalled that, on March 9, 2013, armed officers stormed 

into a service in Lin Ming’s home and handcuffed and arrested the ten 

parishioners. At headquarters, two officers threatened Lin, kicked and punched him 

to force him to stand during questioning, and denied him food, water, or sleep for 

48 hours. For more than a month thereafter, Lin was held in a detention center and 

beat severely every two to three days until he was released on bail on April 23, 

2012. Afterwards, officers threatened to rearrest Lin and break his hands, arms, 

and legs if he returned to the “evil cult,” ordered him to return weekly to account 

for his activities and his associates, and surveilled him at home and at work. Lin’s

detailed accounts of being arrested, interrogated, insulted, battered, imprisoned, 

and monitored supported his claim that he was punished for and prohibited from 

worshipping in an unregistered house church.

The immigration judge also disregarded evidence that substantiated Lin’s 

claims of mistreatment. See Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1280 (11th 

Cir. 2009). For example, the immigration judge relied on a statement in the 2012 

China International Religious Freedom Report that local officials did not interfere 

with unregistered house churches, yet the immigration judge overlooked 

statements that officials punished unregistered groups by confiscating and 

destroying their property, assaulting and injuring participants, and imprisoning 

leaders and attendees. The immigration judge also relied on general statements in a 

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 5 of 7 
6

State Department report that expressed little concern for religious persecution in

the Fujian Province, but those general statements failed to rebut Lin’s specific 

testimony about his personal experiences. See Gaksakuman v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 767 

F.3d 1164, 1171 (11th Cir. 2014). And the immigration judge discounted 

newspaper reports about the mistreatment of Catholics in the Fujian Province on 

the ground that Lin is Protestant, without considering Lin’s testimony, reports from 

the China Aid Association, and a report about a Chinese regulation that connects 

persecution to a church’s failure to register, not its denomination.

Other documents in the record also corroborate Lin’s accounts of 

persecution and bias against unregistered churches. The 2012 and 2013 Country 

Reports stated that citizens were beaten, deprived of sleep, and suffered other

harms for their religious practices. Likewise, statements in the 2012 China 

International Report established that officials referred to Protestant groups 

unaffiliated with state-sanctioned churches as “evil cults.” 

The immigration judge discounted letters from Lin’s ministers on the ground

that they were written by interested witnesses, but, in so doing, failed to account 

for the ministers’ unique ability to chronicle the raids and the mistreatment of 

church members. See Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 2007). Chen

stated that seven officers interrupted his family church service, forced the 

participants to the ground where they were handcuffed and searched, and 

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 6 of 7 
7

transported them for questioning. Chen, like Lin, was told by officers that his 

church was a “cult,” was beaten and kicked and denied nourishment and sleep, was 

imprisoned for three months, and was released on bail with a warning not to plan 

or to attend future “cult church gatherings.” Ming’s letter recounted his meeting 

with Lin and Lin’s first visit to Ming’s house church on March 9, 2013, when

officers disrupted the service and handcuffed and arrested the participants. 

Thereafter Ming suffered harms similar to Lin. Ming reported being kicked by two 

officers to force him to stand during his interrogation, being denied food, water, 

and sleep until he was moved to a detention center, being imprisoned for two 

months, and being released on bail under instructions to inform officers weekly 

about his whereabouts and his companions.

We grant Lin’s petition for review. Lin’s testimony, which the immigration 

judge found credible, was sufficiently detailed and corroborated with documentary 

evidence to establish that he was a refugee. We remand for the agency to consider 

whether the harms inflicted on Lin amounted to persecution and whether there is a 

reasonable possibility that he will singled out for persecution if he returns to China.

We GRANT Lin’s petition for review.

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 7 of 7