[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 72 Fu F eng Lin , a native and citiz en of China, petition s 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 Degradin g Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. § § 1158(b), 1231(b)(3)

. T he 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 b ased on his religious activities . Lin described two incidents in which he was arrested , abuse d , and imprison ed by Chinese officials fo r par ticipatin g 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 f o r the agency to consider whether the harms inflicted on Lin constituted persecut i on and whether t here is a reasonable possibility that he will singled out for persecution if he returns to China. We review the decision of the Board to determin e whether it “ is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 70 7 F.3d 12 31 , 12 3 4 (11th Cir. 201 3 ). “Under this standard, reversal requires finding ‘ that the record not only supp orts reversal, but

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2 of 73 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 i mmigration j udge, we review the decision of the i mmigration j udge. Shi , 707 F.3d at 1234.
An a lien must prov e that he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal

. The a lien ’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 h is native country on account of h is race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Id

. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1), 1231(b)(3). I f “ 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 t estimony 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. U nited
S tates Att orney Gen eral , 504 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 200 7 )

. I n Niftaliev , the alien ’s graphic description of t he systematic discrimination and abuse inflicted by

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 3 of 74 Ukrainian official s establish ed that he suffered past persecution on account of his ethnicity and political activities

. Id. at 1217. Niftaliev, who had been ostracized and penalize d for being part Azerbaijani and part Ukrainian , was mistreated by government officials for protest ing 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 w as 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 testifie d 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 the m to a police station

. Lin recounted that two interrogating officers s aid t here was no “ghost or God” and accused him of participating in an “evil cult , ” that he was imprisoned for f ive day s 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 75 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

. A t headquarters , two officers threatened Lin , kicked and punched him to force him to stan d during question ing , and denied him food, water, or sleep for 48 hours

. For more than a month thereafter , Lin was held i n a detention center and beat severely every two to three days until he was released on bail on April 23,
2012. Afterwards, o ffic er s thre atened to rearrest Lin and break his hands, arms, and legs if he returned to the “evil cult , ” ordered him to return weekly to account f

o r his activities and his associates , and surveilled him a t home and at work. L in ’s detailed accounts of being arrest ed , interrogat ed , insult ed , battered , imprisoned, and monitored support ed his claim that he was punished for and prohibi ted from worshipping in a n unregistered house church

. The immigration judge also disregard e d evidence that substantiate d Lin’ s claim s of mistreatment

. See Tang v. U.S. Att ’ y Gen. , 578 F.3d 1270, 1280 (11th Cir. 2009)

. For example, t he immigration judge reli ed on a statement in the 2012 China Interna tiona l Religious Freedom Report that local officials did not interfere with unregistered house churches , yet the immigration judge overlooked
statement s that officials punish ed unregistered groups by confiscating and destroying their property, assaulting and injuring participants, and imprisoning leaders and attendees. T he immigration judge also relied on general statements in a

Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 5 of 76 State Department report that express ed little conc ern for religious persecution in the Fujian Province , but th ose general statement s 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 t he immigration judge d iscounted 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 r egulation that connects persecution to a church’s failure to register, not its denomination.
O ther documents in the record also corroborate Lin’ s accounts of persecution and bias against unregistered churches. T he 2012 and 2013 Country Reports stated that citizens were beat e n, deprived of sleep, and suffer ed other harm s for their religious practices

. Likewise, s tatements in t he 2012 China International Report establishe d that officials referred to Protestant groups unaffiliated with state

- sanctioned churches as “evil cults.”
Th e immigration judge discount ed l etters from Lin’s ministers on the ground
that the y were written by interested witnesses , but, in so doing, failed to account for the ministers’ unique ability to chronicle the raids and the m is treatment of church members. See Ruiz v. Gonzales , 479 F.3d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 2007)

. Chen
stat ed 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 77 transported the m for questioning. Chen , like Lin, was told by offic ers that his church was a “cult ,” was beat en and kicked and denied nourishment and sleep, was imprisoned f or 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 kic ked by two officers to force him to stand during his interrogation , being de ni ed 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 com pa nions.
W e 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

. W e remand f o r 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