2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-12-2005 

# C a ou v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4256

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C a ou v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1099. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1099P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 03- 4256

YUN J UN C AO
Pet i t i oner

v. ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF T HE UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA,

R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 79 309 920)

A r gued N ovember 18, 2004 B e f o re : R O T H , S M IT H , a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed: M ay12, 2005)

NORMAN KWAI

WI NG WONG (a

rgued) 401 Broadwa

y , Suite 1205 New Y ork, NY 10013 Attorney for Petitioner PETER D. KEI SL ER J OHN C. CUNNI

NGHAM MI CHELLE R. THRESHER J EFF REY M. SENGER (argued)2 Offic e of Immigration L itigation United States Depa

rtment of Just ice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Attorneys for Respondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge

. Y un J un C ao, a C hi nes e nat i onal , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the deni al byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) of her appl i cat i on for asy l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and for pr ot ecti o n u ndert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T )

. C ao c laim s th a t, w h ile w o rk in g a s a p e d iatric ian in a C h in e se h o sp ital, s he di s cover ed thatt he hos pi t al w as comm i tt ing inf ant i ci de i n an at t empt t o compl yw i t h C hi na’ s popul at i on control pol i cy . A ft er herl et t er t o a H ong K ong new s r epor t erexpos i ng t hi s pr act i ce w as i nt er cept ed byt he C hi nes e governm ent , sh e s ay s t hats he w as det ai ned fort hr ee mont hs , i nt err ogat ed, and phy s i cal l yab u s ed. U pon r el eas e fr om pr i s on, C ao fl ed C hi na and arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed S ta te s o n a v is ito r’ s v is a . C ao’ s al l egat i ons t hats he w as per s ecut ed forexpos i ng and cr i t i ci zi ng t he pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de, i f cr edi bl e, w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a val i d as y l um cl ai m u n d er t he amended 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(2005)

. T he I m m i gr at i on Ju d g e (IJ), h o w ev er, d e n ied C a o ’s c laim f

o r re lief o n th e b a sis o f a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on . A ft er decl ari ng t hat C ao’s de m eano r as a w i t ness w as “qui t e per fect , ” the I J di s cr edi t ed vi r tual l yeveryas pectof C ao ’s t esti m o n y . W ith resp ec t t o the in fa n ti cide issue , the IJ pr ocee ded on t he bas i s of t he not i on t hatt her e i s no r eal di s t i nct i on betw een i nfant i ci de an d fo rce d abor t i on, w hi ch l ed hert o be i ncr edul ous t hatC ao coul d be s o offe nded byi nfant i ci de w hen s he w as al r eady aw ar e of t he pr act i ce of for ced abor t i on. T he I J m ade no at t empt t o anchort hi s as pect of hercr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng t o t he r ecor d. A ddi t i onal l y , t he IJ found a l ack of cr edi bi l i t yw i t h r es pect1 I n 1979, t he C hi nes e governm entfi r s ti ns t i tut ed a compre hens i ve fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cyw hi ch es t abl i s hed quot as on t he number of chi l dr en perm i t t ed foreac h coupl e. T he pol i cyhas change d overt i m e, r el y ing i n vary i ng degr ees on educa t i on, ec o n o m ic i n ce n ti v es, pro p ag an d a, a n d co erc ive m ea su res to en su re c o m p lia n c e . See U .S

. S ta te D e p a rt m e n t, C hi na: P r of i l e of A s yl um C l aim s andC ou ntr

y C on dit i on s 20 ( 1998) [her ei naft er1998 C hi na Pr ofi l e]

. W hi l e the governm entoffi ci al l ydeni e s th atphy s i cal for ce i s us ed t o comp el a b o r t i on ors t er i l i zat i on, t her e ar e w i des pr ead re p o rt s th a t s u c h c o e rc e d p ro c e d u re s n e v e rt h e le s s o c c u r. I d. N ei t hert he C hi nes e governm entnort he U

. S. St at e D epart m enthas o ff ici all yrec o g n ized the u s e o f in fa n ti cide as p art of C h ina’s p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l p o l i c y. 3 to a n u m b er o f o ther a sp ec ts of C ao ’s t esti m o n y , ea ch o f w h ich tu rn outt o be ei t her bas ed on s pecul at i on or w i t hout any s uppor t i n t he r ecor d. T he I J t hus i m pr oper l ydi s cr edi t ed C ao’ s test imonyi n a n u m b e r o f

m a te ri a l r e s p e c ts

. T he B I A s um m ar il yaff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i t hout o p inion

. T h u s, w e re v iew the IJ’s d ec isi o n alon e. B ec au se th e IJ’s d eterm ination d o es n o t m ee t th e su b stan ti al ev ide n c e stan d ard u n d e r w h ic h th e d e c is io n m u s t b e re v ie w e d , s e e i n f r a Pa r t I I , we w i l l gr antC ao’s pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand t o t he B I A for f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .

I

. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY
C ao att ended the G aungxi Pr ovi nce C ol l ege of Tra di t i onal C hi nes e M edi ci ne and then pr act i ced a s a pedi atr i ci an att he Second A ffi l i at ed H os pi t al of G uangxi Pr ov ince i n t he ci t yof N anni ng. She i s m arr i ed and ha s a daught er , and both herhus band a n d d a u g h ter re m a in in N a n n in g a t th is tim e . T h e f o llo w in g is C ao’ s t es t i m onyaboutt he eve nt s begi nni ng i n 1999. I n t haty ear , aft erfi ft een y ear s of m edi ca l p r act i ce, C ao d isco v ere d that h er ho sp it al w as k il li n g li v e b o rn b ab ies w h o w ere b o rn in v io latio n o f C h in a ’s p o p u latio n c o n tro l p o licy , d e sc rib e d in th e m argi n. A l t ho ug h she h ad b een aw are of C hina’ s fam ily

1 pl anni ng pol i cyand had pr evi ous l yknow n t hat offi ci al s w oul d at t i m es for ce w om en t o have l at e- t er m abor t i ons i n w hi ch the fe tus4 w as t er m i nat ed be fore exi t i ng t he bi r t h cana l , C ao di d notknow th a t th e h o s p ita l w a s c o m m ittin g in f a n tic id e u n til 1 9 9 9

. C ao r eal i zed thatt he hos pi t al w as comm i t t i ng inf ant i ci de onl yaft erherPedi atr i cs depart m entm oved t o t he s ame fl ooras t he O bs t etr i cs / G ynecol ogy( O b/ G yn) depart m entdue t o hos pi t al r enovat i ons . O ne da y , s he not i ced a w om an cry i ng i n t he O bs t etr i cs w ar d and w as t ol d t h at th e w om an’ s chi l d had di ed s uddenl y af

t ers he had gi ven bi r t h. C ao’ s s us pi ci ons w er e r ai s ed beca us e the obs t etr i ci ans had not c o n s ul t ed w i t h t he Pedi atr i cs d e p a rtm e n t. A n O b /G yn n u rse to ld C a o , “n e v e r m in d a b o u t th a t, t hatw as bus i nes s forfami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . ” A ft ert hi s i n c i dent , C ao bega n t o not i ce otherw om en cry i ng, eac h of w hom cl ai m ed herbabyhad di ed s hor t l yaft er b ir th. She fi nal l yconfr ont ed Lao Z i J uan, a fr i end fr om m edi cal s chool , w ho wor k e d i n t h e Ob/ Gy n d e p a r t me n t , a b o u tt h e i n f a n td e a t h s . La o Zi t ol d hert hat t he m ot her s di d not have fami l y - pl anni ng per m i t s , and s o, undert he hos pi t al rul es , nur s es w oul d i nj ectn ew bor n babi es w ith a lco h o l to c a u se d e a th . C a o c laim s th a t sh e w a s s h o c k e d to lea rn th a t th e h o sp ital w a s k ill in g c h ild re n b o rn a li v e to c o m p ly w ith th e p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l p o lic y . A cc o rdin g to C ao , a f

ew m o n ths later, at a p arty in a f ri en d ’s hom e, s he enc ount er ed Suen Y ut , a rep o r t erfort he H ong K ong m a g a z in e , C h e n gMin gMo n th ly

. In t he course of th e ir conver s at i on, Suen Y utas ked C ao i f she ha d hear d t hati nfant i ci de t ook pl ace atC hi n ese hos pi t al s . C ao t ol d hi m w hats he had w i t nes s ed ather hos pi t al

. Suen Y ut as ked C ao t o w r i t e a det ai l ed acc ountaboutt he pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de and s end i t t o hi m s o t hat he could w ri te an art i cl e expos i ng t he pr act i ce. W hi l e hes i t antat f irst b e c a u se sh e w a s w o rrie d a b o u t lo sin g h e r j o b , C a o e v e n tu a lly agr eed t o s end the i nfor m at i on t o Suen Y ut aft er he ass ur ed hert hat th e a rt ic le c o u ld b e p u b lis h e d a n o n ym o u s ly. B eca us e s he w as conce r ned aboutus i ng t he mai l fors endi ng su ch sen sit ive in fo rm ati o n , C ao firstm ail ed S u en Y u t a t est l ett er, cont ai ni ng not hi ng contr over s i al

. T hi s l et t er r eac hed hi m w i t hout bei ng i nt er cept ed. She t hen m ai l ed a s econd l et t erdet ai l i ng w hat s he had obs er ved about t he pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de. T hi s l et t erw as s entbyr egi s t er ed mai l , w hi ch r equi r ed her t o gi ve hername. T he l et t er , how ever , w as i nt er ce p ted byt he C hi nes e author i t i es and tr a c e d b a c k to C a o . A s a r es ul t , C ao w as arr es t ed atherhom e i n N anni ng on2 T he r ecor d does not m ake cl earw hethert he amount of the bri be is m easured i n yuan or U

. S

. D oll ars . 5 A pr i l 25, 2000. She s ay s t hatt he author i t i es t hen gave herhus band a not i ce of

det ent ion , w h i ch s he s ubm i t t ed i n evi dence att he pr ocee di ng befor e the I J

. She cl ai m s t hat , aft er her arr es t , s he w as d e tain e d , inte rro g a ted , an d b e a ten

. T h e o f f ice rs p re se n ted h e r w ith t he l et t ert o Suen Y utand s he eve ntual l yconfe s s ed that s he had w r i t t en i t

. She t es t i fi ed thatt he i nt err ogat i ons i ncl uded bea t i ngs a n d e lec tric sh o c k s, a n d th a t s h e c o n tin u e s to h a v e re c u rrin g p a in in h er sh o u lder, ne ck , an d fin g ers a s a re su lt

. A t her h ea ri n g b ef o re th e IJ, C a o tes tifie d th a t s h e th o u g h t h e r in ter ro g a to rs w e re p u b lic sec u ri tyo ff

ici als, alt h o u g h theyw ere n o t al w ay s in u n ifo rm . In heras y l um appl i cat i on, C ao had s ai d sh e w as t or tur ed byfel l ow in m a tes , at th e o f

f ice r’s in stig a tio n , b u t sh e d id n o t m e n tio n th is f a c t in h e r o ra l te s tim o n y . C a o w a s n o t ch a rg e d w ith a n yc rim e , b u t th e se c u rity offi cer s t ol d hert hats he coul d be c har ged w i t h s edi t i on and s ent ence d t o t en y ear s i m pr i s onm ent

. C ao t es t i fi ed that s he w as d e tain e d f

o r th re e m o n th s a n d w a s c o n d iti o n a llyre le a se d o n Ju ly 25 , 20 00

. S he say s t hat t he offici al s rel eased h er s o theycou l d u se hert o l ur e Suen Y utback t o m ai nl and C hi na. O n r el eas e, s he had t o po s t b a i l a n d r e p o r t t o p u b l i c s e c u r i t y e v e r y wee k , b u ts he bel i eves t hats he re m ai ned under s ur vei l l ance . O n J ul y 26, 2000, s he r ece i ved not i ce t hat her empl oym entw i t h t he hos pi t al had bee n te rm in a te d

. A fter h er r el eas e, C ao managed t o s end w or d t o Suen Y ut th ro u g h a f

rie n d w h o w a s v isitin g H o n g K o n g , w a rn in g h im n o t to cont actheror t o come t o N anni ng. T he fr i end mai l ed the w arni ng lette r f ro m H o n g K o n g . S u e n Y u t ap p a re n tlyd id n o t re tu rn to m ai nland C hina and w as not apprehen ded byC hinese offi ci al s. O n O c to b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 , C a o m a d e h e r la s t w e e k lyre p o rt to publ i c s ecur i t y . T hataft ernoon, s he abs conded f r om N anni ng and w entt o t he Shanghai ai rpor t , w her e s he br i bed a r el at i ve of a fr i end w i t h “30, 000” t o pr ovi de herw i t h an exi tperm it

. T hough her 2 hous e had be en s ear ched a ft erherarr es tand aga i n aft erherr el eas e, t he publ i c s ecur i t yoff

icers d i d notfi nd herpas s por t , w hi ch w as sto re d in a sa f

e d e p o s it b o x a t a b a n k . C a o b o a rd e d a p lan e in Shanghai , and arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es on a B

- 1 vi s a on6 O ct ober20, 2000. I n fil l i ng outhert empora r yvi s a appl i cat i on, C ao l i ed aboutt he purp o se o f hervi s i tt o t he U ni t ed St at es , and f a lse lysta ted th a t sh e h a d n e v e r b e e n a rre ste d , an d th a t sh e w a s s til l empl oy ed att he hos pi tal

. C ao admi t t ed thes e fa l s ehoods ather h e a ri n g b e f

o re th e IJ

. C ao w as author i zed t o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es onl yas a t empora r yvi s i t or . A ft ers he over s t ay ed hervi s a, s he w as i nt er vi ew ed byan as y l um offi cerw ho r efe r r ed hercl ai m to a n I m m i gr at i on J udge. O n O ct ober 26, 2001, C ao w as s er ved w i t h a N o tice to A p p e a r c h a rg in g h e r w ith re m o v a b ility pu rsu a n t to Sect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of t he Imm i gr at i on and N at i onal i t y A ct

. C ao conc ed ed r emovabi l i t yand r eques t ed as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l, a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . I n addi t i on t o t es t i fy i ng to the afor ement i oned fa ct s , C ao i nt r oduced doc um ent aryevi dence t o corrob o r at e hers t or y . She s ubm i t t ed herpas s por tand hos pi t al i d e n t i f i c a t i on car d. She offe r ed a l et t erfr om herhus band i n C hi na t o C ao ather a d d ress in N ew J er s ey . T he l et t err el at es t hataft erC ao es cape d to the U ni t ed S tate s, th e p u b lic s e c u rityo f f ice rs c a m e to C a o ’s h o u se in C h in a to sea rch fo r he r an d “h ara ssed ” h er h u sb an d a n d d au g h ter, co n fiscat ed l et t er s , and thr eat ened them w i t h a gun. W hen the o ff icers f o u n d n o thing , h er h u sb an d said the publ i c s ecur ityo ff icers “r eques t [ed] m e t o not i fyy ou t o r etur n back t o C hi na t o s ur r ender y o u rse lf a n d a c c e p t th e p u n ish m e n t b ylaw

. O th e rw ise w e w o u ld fac e more s er i ous puni s hm ent

. . . i f y o u w ere arr es t ed ori f y ou w er e s entback t o C hi na s om e day

. ” I n addi t i on, s he off

er ed a doc um ent , w hi ch s he cl ai m s w as gi ven t o herfami l yupon herarr es tbyt he N anni ng C i t yN at i onal Secur i t yB ur eau, w hi ch s t at es t hats he w as arr es t ed and j ai l ed for

“ c o n tr ib u t[ in g a ] re a c tio n a ry a rt ic le f o r o v e rs e a s p u b lic a tio n .” Fur t her , C ao i nt r oduced he rdi s m i s s al l et t erfr om t he G aungxi C ol l ege of T r adi t i onal C hi nes e M edi ci ne, w hi ch denounc ed heras bei ng “poi s oned byC api tal i s t i c ana r chi s m for[a] l ong t i m e. She has [an] i nt i m a t e [ ] r el at i ons hi p w i t h over s eas ant i

- C hi na for ces and pos t [ed a ] contr i but i on . . . out s i de of Chi na t o m ake vi ci ous att ack agai ns tt he nat i onal bas i c pol i cyof C hi na. ” W hen asked b yt he IJ how sh e recei ved t hese do cum ents , C ao expl ai ned thats he had a s ked herfam il y t o s end evi dence s uppor t i ng h er asy l um cl ai m , and thatherhus band had a fr i end m ai l hi s l et t er and the otherdocument s fr om G uangzhou pr ovi nce.7 C ao t es t i fi ed thats he di d notr et ai n t he enve l ope, b u tt hatt he p a c k a g e d id n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n o p e n e d w h e n sh e re c e iv e d it in th e U n ite d S ta te s . Fi nal l y , C ao pr ovi ded a le t t er , dat ed J ul y31, 2001, w hi ch s he cl ai m s i s fr om t he r epor t erSue n Y utatt he C heng Mi ng Mo n th ly i n H ong K ong. T he l et t ers t at es i n t he fi r s tpar agr aph that

[C ao ] suf

fe red arrest, im p ri so n m en t and tortu re b e c a u se sh e p ro v id e d m e th e n e w s c lu e s, in w hich she revi ew ed t he fa ct [] that [the] C hinese g o v e rn m e n t k ill [ s] in f

a n ts b ym e d ica l m e a n s in nati on al i t yau to no m ou s r egions for t he p urpose o f p o p u latio n c o n tro l. S h e th e r e f o re e sc a p e d to y ourcountr yt o avoi d fur t herper s ecut i on.
T he l et t ergoes on t o di s cus s m or e gene r al l yhum an ri ght s abus es i n C hi na and ot herunr el at ed i ns t ance s of C hi na’ s r es t r i ct i on of fr ee s p e e c h a n d o th e r c iv il lib e rt ie s . Th e I J i s s u e d a l e n g t h y d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g Ca o’ s a s y l u m, w i t hh o l di ng of r emoval , and C A T cl ai m s on t he gr ound t hatC ao w a s n o t cr e d ib le. T h e IJ ju stif ied h e r a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on on s ever al pur por t e d i n c o n s i s t e n c i es and im p lau sib ili ties in C a o ’ s s to ry . B e c a u se th is c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n g o e s to th e h e a rt o f C a o ’s c laim o n a p p e a l, w e w ill d i s c u s s t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e I J ’ s f

i n d i n g s b e l o w. C ao appe al ed t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , w hi ch aff i r m ed th e IJ w i t houtopi ni on pur s uantt o t he s t r eaml i ni ng r egul at i ons , 8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 1( e) ( 4)

. She t i m el yp eti ti oned for r e v i e w. I I

. J UR I SDI CTI ON , SCOPE AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EW
T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval u n d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). B e ca u se th e B IA af firm ed the IJ w ith o u t o p in io n , th is C o u rt re v ie w s th e IJ ’s o p in io n a lo n e . S e e D ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 3 F

. 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c )

. We r evi ew t he I J ’ s opinion u n d ert he “s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” t es t , s et for t h i n 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) : “the adm i ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fac tar e con clus i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” See al s o A bdi l l e v.8 A sh c ro ft , 242 F.3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( agenc y ’ s fi ndi ng “m u st be u p h eld u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rts a c o n tr ary co n clus ion , b u t com p e ls it

. ”). U n d er this st an d ard , “[ T ]he C o u rt w il l up h o ld the ag en cy ’s find ing s o f f ac t to th e ex tent that theyare

‘ s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ’ ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 2 7 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n , li k e a ll IJ f a c tu a l f in d in g s, is s u b je c t to s u b s ta n tia l ev id e n c e re v ie w . A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on s m aybe b ased on “i nco nsi st en tst at em ents , c o n tr a d ic to ry e v id e n c e , a n d in h e re n tly im p ro b a b le te s tim o n y .” D ia , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 4 9 . W h ile the sta n d a rd o f re v iew is d e f

e re n tial, this C o u rtsti ll m u st ex erc is e m ea n ing fu l r ev iew o f th e IJ’s deci s i on: A dver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ngs ar e af for ded s ubs t ant i al defe r ence s o l ong as the fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by s peci fi c coge ntr eas ons . T he r eas ons m us tbe s ubs t ant i al and bea r a legi t i m at e nexus t o t he fi ndi ng. G ao , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 7 6 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

I I I

. DI S CU S S I ON
A

. T he L ega lStanda rd
T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yg ra n t as y lu m to a n a lien w h o is a “ re f u g e e ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1158( b) ( 1)

. T o be el i gi bl e foras y l um , an al i en musts how th a t h e o r sh e : i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o, and i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f orher s el f of the pr ot ect i on of [the countr yof s uch p er s on’ s nat i onal i t yori n w hi ch s uch a pe r s on l as thabi tual l yr es i ded] beca us e of per s ecut i on ora w el l

- founded f earof p ers ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m emb ersh ip i n a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .3 S e c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: [ A ] p e rso n w h o h a s b e e n f o rc e d to a b o rt a p re g n a n c yo r to under go i nvol unt ary s t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been per s ecut ed forfai l ur e orref u sal t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orforot herr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, s hal l be dee m ed t o have be en per s ecut ed on a c c ou nt of po l i t i c a l op i ni on , a nd a pe r s on w ho has a w el l founded fea r t hat he ors he w i l l be for ced t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e or subj ect t o per s ecut i on fors uch fa i l ur e, re f u sa l, or re sis tan c e sh a ll b e d e e m e d to h a v e a w e ll founde d fea rof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal o p in io n . 9 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a)( 42) ( A )

. A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves ri se to a re b u tt ab le p resu m p ti o n o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. 8 C

. F. R

. § 1208. 13( b) ( 1)

. W hi l e as y l um cons t i tut es di s cr et i onaryr el i ef, an as y l um appl i canti s ent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval i f he or sh e can s at i s fyt he hi gherbur den of demonst r at i ng t hati ti s m or e l i kel y than n o t t hatl i fe orfr eedom w oul d be th rea tene d beca us e of a pr ot ect ed gr ound i f he ors he w e re re m o v e d

. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ) (19 9 9 ); Mia h v . A sh c ro ft , 3 4 6 F .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”) , Pub. L

. N o. 104- 208, 110 S t a t

. 3 0 0 9 ( S e p t

. 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 ) , a m e n d e d § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) t o s p e c i f y, in tera lia , t hati ndi vi dual s per s ecut ed fo r r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am “sha l l be dee m ed t o have be en p e rse c u ted o n a c c o u n t o f p o lit ica l o p in io n ,” a n d th u s a re e lig ib le for as y l um . C ao has al l eged t hat s he w as per s ecut ed forexpos i ng

3 and cr i t i ci zi ng t he pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de comm i t t ed as par tof C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i cy . I f cr edi bl e, C ao’ s al legat i ons wo u l d q u a l i f

yh e rf o ra s y l u m u n d e rt h e a me n d e d 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 ), as c o n sti tu ti n g “o ther res ist an ce ” to C h ina’s p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l p o lic y . T her e i s l i t t l e pr ece dentdefi ni ng t he s cope of t he popul at i on co n tr o l po rt ion o f S ec ti o n 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )’s p rotec ti o n s in c ase s w h ere th e a p p lica n t d o e s n o t c laim h e o r sh e w a s p e rso n a lly su b jec ted to10 f o rc e d a b o rtio n o r ste riliza tio n . N e v e rth e les s, th e sta tu te p lain ly s peci fi es t hata perso n w ho engage s i n “otherr es i s t ance t o a coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, s hal l be dee m ed t o have be en per s ecut ed on acco u n tof pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” I tappea r s t o us t hat w r i t i ng an art i cl e cr i t ical of popul at i on contr ol pr act i ces and expos i ng t he pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de cons t i tut es s uch “other r es i s t ance . ” A tal l event s , even i f w e di d noth o ld thatt he popul at i on contr ol pr ovi s i on s peci fi cal l yappl i ed, i ti s cl eart hat C ao’ s al l egat i ons of det ent i on and phy s i cal abus e forexpos i ng and cr i t i ci zi ng a governm entpr act i ce w oul d be enc om pas s ed i n t he m or e gene r al as y l um pr ot ect i ons fort hos e w h o h ave been p e rs e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f p o litic a l o p in io n . S e e Gr a v a v
. I NS , 205 F

. 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 1 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ [ W] h e r e t h e wh i s t l e b l o ws agai n s tc o r ru p tg o v e r n me n to f f i c i a l s , i tma yc o n s t i tu t e p o l i t i cal act i v i t ys uffi ci entt o for m t he bas i s of per s ecut i on on acc ountof p o li ti ca l op inion

. ”); Ma r q u ez v . IN S , 105 F. 3d 374, 381 ( 7 th C ir

. 1997) ( not i ng t hat“pol i t i cal agi t at i on agai ns ts t at e corrupt i on” c o u ld b e c o n s id e re d g ro u n d s f o r a s y lu m ). T her efor e, as C ao’ s al l egat i ons w oul d be s uffi ci ent t o m ake outan as y l um cl ai m , C ao’ s abi l i t yt o s eek r el i ef hi ng es on t he c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . B

. R evi ew of

the I J’s C r edi bi l i t

y D et er m i nat i on 1. A bor t i on and I nfant i ci de
C ao t es t i fi ed thatw hen s he di s cover ed i n fant i ci de w as o c c u rrin g in h e r h o sp ital sh e w a s “sho cked ” a n d g re w “ d e sp o n d e n t” t o fi nd t hat“theyw oul d ki l l [a] baby l i ke that

. ” C ao s ai d t hats he had know n t hatfor ced a bor t i ons , even lat e t er m abor t i ons , had occurr ed, butt hat s he di d not know unt i l her Pedi atr i cs depart m ent w as m o v ed to th e sam e floo r as th e O b /G yn w ard that n u rses w ere ki l l i ng l i ve i nfant s aft erdel i very . T he IJ, h o w ev er , w as t r oubl ed t hatC ao w oul d di s t i ngui sh betw een i nfant i ci de and f or ced abor t i ons . T he I J s t at ed: [C ao] s eemed t o m ake [ a] verydi s t as t eful di s t i nct i on t hat sh e b eli ev es th at the sali n e ab o rt ion s, in h er o p inion , w ere l es s offe ns i ve th an the i nfant i ci de thatw as bei ng p e r f o r me d o n l i v e b o r n c h i l d r e n . I n o t h e rwo r d s , s h e s e e ms11 t o m ake a di s t i nct i on i n her ow n pecul i arm i nd t hata s al i ne a b o rtio n th a t k ill s the f

e tu s b e f o re it e x its th e b irth c a n a l is s om ehow di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the i nfant i cide orfor ced death of the chi l d bor n al i ve.
L at eri n heropi ni on, t he IJ agai n expr es s ed di s comfortt hat C a o w o u ld m a k e s u c h a d is tin c tio n , “ H o w s o m e b o d yc a n . . . m a k [ e ] a d istin c tio n b e tw e e n sa lin e a b o rtio n s a n d o th e rs is re a lly d ist u rbi ng. ” The I J ’ s vi ew t hatt he tw o pr ocedur es s houl d be d e e m e d e q u a llyo f

f e n s iv e o r f

u n c tio n a llye q u iv a len t led h e r to di scredi tC ao’ s pr ofes s ed “s hock” a tdi s cover i ng t hati nfant i ci de o cc u rred , b ec au se C ao h ad ad m itted th at sh e w as p rev iou slyaw are tha tfor ced a bor t i ons had occ ur r ed att he hos pi t al

. Si nce the IJ equat ed abort i on and i nfant i ci de, s he coul d notbel ieve thatC ao w o u ld b e sh o ck ed to d isco v er i nf ant i ci de w a s o c c u rrin g sin c e “ th is conce ptof f

or ced abor t i on is n o th in g n e w to a n yb o d y ” (e m p h a sis added)

. T he I J cont i nued by addi ng t hat “[Cao] eventual l yadmi t t ed th a t sh e k n e w th a t all th e h o sp itals in C h in a w e re p ro b a b ly p e rf o rm in g f o rc e d a b o rtio n s, d e sp ite th e f a c t th a t s h e w e n t in to s udden shock i n 1999 j us t beca us e one of t he met hods w as di ffe r ent fr om al l t he r es t

. ” B eca us e the I J her s el f di d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een a bor t i on a n d in f a n ticid e , sh e se e m e d u n w ill in g to b e liev e th a t C a o w o u ld m ake s uch a di s t i nct i on. She t hus di s count ed C ao’ s t es t i m onyt hat s he w as s urpr i s ed t o fi nd t hat t he hos pi t al w as notonl ypr act i ci ng for ced a bor t i ons and otherm or e w i del yknow n coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol t echn i ques , butw as actual l yki l l i ng l i ve born babi es . T he I J wa s s i mi l a r l y s k e p t i c a l o f Ca o ’ s t e s t i mo n y t h a t s h e o n l yb e c a me aw ar e t hat i nfant i ci de w as occurr i ng aft er her depart m ent w as put on t he O b/ G yn fl oor . T he I J concl uded t hat “[Cao’ s ] s t or yt hats he di dn’ tknow w hatw as goi ng on i s abs ur d. ” T he conc l us i on t hat C ao’ s t es t i m onyw as notpl aus i bl e w as o n c e a g a in d riv e n b yth e IJ’ s u n w ill in g n e ss to b e liev e th a t C a o d id notequat e abort i on and i nfant i ci de. T he I J opi ned,
W or ki ng i n t he sa m e pl ace for17 l ong y ear s , t he r es pondentm akes it seem as i f s he musthave s t ay ed i n a cube the ent i r e t i m e thats he w as t her e . . . [C ao] never pi ece d t ogethert he fa ct t hat even t hough fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s w er e i n herhos pi t al , and thateven though s he12 knew t hatt heyw er e per for m i ng s al i ne abor t i ons on w om en and pr obabl yot herpr ocedur es to fo rce abor t i ons on w om en w ho w er e ear l i er i n t hei rpr egnanc i es , t hats he neverqui t e w as abl e t o putt ogetherhow i tw as t hatot her w om en w ho w her e al r eadyi n t hei rni n th m ont h of p re g n a n c yw e re h a v in g th e irp re g n a n c ie s te rm in a te d

. ( emphasi s added)

. T he I J t hus s eems t o have bel i eve d that s i nce C ao knew t h ere w er e abort i ons occurr i ng, s he s houl d have inelu ctab lyco n clud ed tha t in f a n ti cide w as a lso p rac ti ce d

. T h e IJ as ked, “[H ] ow coul d t he re s pondent not know t hat i nfant i ci de w as b e in g p ra c tice d a t th a t h o sp ital w h e re th e f a m ilyp lan n in g o f

f icia ls w er e t er m i nat i ng pr egnanc i es i n t he ni nt h m ont h?” B ya c c e p tin g th is re a so n in g , the IJ di sr egarded the s e e m in g ly l ogi cal expl anat i on of w hyC ao di d notdi s cov ert he pr act i ce of inf an ti cide u n ti l 1 9 9 9

. C ao test ifi ed that fo r th e p ri o r fifteen y ea rs s he had w or ked i n a di ffe r entpar tof the hos pi t al , w hi ch us ed a d if f e re n t e n tra n c e f

ro m th e O b /G yn d e p a rtm e n t. T h u s , C a o sa id t hat s he di d not have cont act w i t h t he O b/ G yn pat i ent s pr i ort o t he 1 9 9 9 r e l o c a t i o n o f h e r d e p a r t me n t

. I t was o n l y whe n s he w as on th e sa m e f

lo o r as th e O b ste trics w a rd a n d n o tice d w o m e n c ry in g in th e hall t hat she di scovered i nfan t i ci de w as occu rr i ng . A t all event s , t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r eco rd t o s uppor tt he I J ’ s s t at ement th a t a p e d iatric ian w o u ld h a v e to “ h a v e sta y e d in a c u b e ” n o t to k n o w th e sp e c if

ic p ra c tice s o f o th e r m e d ica l d e p a rtm e n ts lo c a ted in p h y sic a llyd if

f e re n t p o rtio n s o f

th e h o sp ital. T h is c o n c lu sio n is m er e s pecul at i on and i s uns uppor t ed byt he evi dence i n t he r ecor d. T h e IJ’ s b e lief

s re g a rd in g a b o rtio n a n d in f a n ticid e sim ilarly l ed hert o di s m i s s t he cl ai m t hat C hi nes e author i t i es w oul d have ha d an i nt er es t i n conce al i ng t he pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de byarr es t i ng C ao, pu tt i ng herunders ur vei l l ance , and i nves t i gat i ng herand the re p o rte r S u e n Y u t. T h e IJ w o n d e re d w h yC h in a w o u ld w a n t to “cove rup s om ethi ng t hatt he w or l d al r eadyknow s about

. ” She cont i nued,

y ou wou l d h a v e t o b e a n o s t r i c h wi t h y o u rh e a d i n t he s and i f y ou w er e g o i ng t o t r yt o bel i eve thatC hi na does n’ tknow t hatt he w or ld know s t hati thas been defi ni t el yi nvol ved i n for ced s t er i l i zat i on and abort i ons and t er m i nat i ons of pr egnan cy . W hyt he r es pondent13 bel i eves t hatC hi na w oul d w ant t o s uppr es s i nfor m at i on th a t is a lre a d yo u t an d m a d e p u b lic in th e w o rld is s o m e th in g b e y o n d lo g ic

. T her e ar e thr ee a p p are n t f al l aci es i n t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng. Fi r s t , w hi l e C hi na does n o t denyt hati thas fami l ypl anni ng r egul at i ons , t he U

. S. St at e D epart m ent ’ s countr ypr ofi l e s t at es t hat t he o ffi ci al C hinese g ov ernm ent po l i cy i s that i t “prohibi t s the u se of for ce t o compel a per s on t o s ubm i tt o abor t i on or s t er il izat i on . . . . [T]he [C hi nes e] G overnm entdoes notcondone the p rac ti ce o f fo rce d ab o rt ion an d

. . . the re sp o n sible o ff ici als are d isc ip lin e d a n d u n d e rg o re tra in in g if it o c c u rs.” 1 9 9 8 C h in a P ro f ile at 25. E ven tho u g h the r e have been pr i orexpos és of for ced abor t i ons and s t er i l i zat i ons , and even t hough t he U ni t ed St at es has r ecogni zed i n t he I I R I R A t hats uch pr act i ces occur , t he C hinese governm ent appar ent l y m ai nt ai ns t hatfor ced a bor t i on and coe r ced steri li za ti o n a re p ro h ibit ed

. A ch ron icl e tha t l o ca l of ficials w ere v io lati n g th e g o v e rn m e n t p o licyw o u ld re v e a l a b re a k d o w n in C hi nes e ce nt r al contr ol

- - - s om ethi ng an author i t ar i an gover nm ent lik e C h in a ’s w o u ld lik e lyw a n t to k e e p se c re t. Second, even t o t he ext entt h at the C hi nes e governm ent m i ghtacknow l edge thati ns t ance s of for ced a bor t i on ors t er i l i zat i on n e v e rt h e le s s o c c u r, i nf

ant i ci de i s c e r t a i n l y notacknow l edged byt he C hi nes e governm entas a pot ent i al abus e of t he popul at i on contr ol pol i cy , m uch l es s as an off i ci al l ys pons or ed pr act i ce. C ao t es t i fi ed t hatt he nur s es t ol d heri nfant i ci des w er e bei ng conduct ed pur s uant t o of f i ci al pol i cy , y et i nfant i ci de i s noteven ment i oned i n t he 1998 U

. S. State D epar t m entr epor t

. O nce a gai n, t he I J ’ s bel i ef that for ced a b o r t i o n a n d i n f a n t i c i d e a r e e q u i v a l e n tl e d h e rt o t he u n ten a b le c o n c lu sio n th a t C h in a w o u ld h a v e n o in ter e st in s uppr es s i ng s t or i es t hat l i ve bor n babi es ar e ki l l ed aft er bi r t h, w hen C hina doe s notpu bli cl yackn ow l edg e t hat i nfan t i ci de o ccurs. F in a lly , the IJ’ s p o sitio n th a t th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld notw antt o s uppr es s cr i t i ci s m of otherw i s e w el l

- know n oreven offi ci al pol i ci es i s i ncons i s t entw i t h C hi na’ s pr opens i t yt o deal “har s hl yand arbi tr ari l y ” w i t h “cha l l enges t o t he C C P’ s pol i t i cal a u th o rity .” 1 9 9 8 C h in a P ro f ile, a t 3 . A c c o rd in g to th e U .S . S tate D epart m ent , t he C hi nes e governm entcont i nues t o “us e r epr es s i ve m eas ur e s s u c h a s i n t i m i dat i on, admi ni s t r at i ve det ent i on, i m pos i t i on of pr i s on t er m s , hous e arr es t , or exi l e t o contr ol t i ght l ydi s s ent ” and14 has di s pl ay ed onl y “s om e l i m i t ed t ol er ance of publ i c expr es s i ons of oppos i t i on t o governm entpol i ci es . ” Id

. at14. T he I J ’ s s uppos i t i on t hatC hi na w oul d notw antt o s uppr es s an ar t i cl e t hat i s cr i t i cal of any governm entpol i cyruns contr aryt o t he natur e of a n author i t ar i an r egi m e that br ooks l i t t l e cr i t i ci s m , par t i cul ar l yi n t he i nternati on al press . Itis cl ea r th at l ate term a b o rt ion an d inf an ti cide are funct i onal l ydi ffe r entpr ocedur es . N ei t herpar t ychal l enges t he pr opos i t i on t hat for ced a bor t i on and i nfant i ci de ar e abhorr ent pr act i ces . T he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on w as i n l ar ge p a rt d riv e n b y h e r un w ill in g n e ss to b e liev e th a t C ao m i ghtm ake a m or al di s t i nct i on betw een i nfant i ci de and for ced abor t i on, t hats he w as m ot i vat ed t o t ake ne w act i on upon l earni ng of the pr act i ce, or t hatt he C hi nes e governm entw oul d per s ecut e C ao forexpos i ng and cr i t i ci zi ng t he pr act i ce. I n r efus i ng t o bel i eve t hatC ao w oul d m ake t hatm or al di s t i nct i on, t he I J di d notr el yon “s peci fi c, cogent r eas ons , ” D ia , 3 5 3 F

. 3 d at 25 0 , b u t on “sp ec u lat ion , co n jecture [and] ot herw i s e uns uppor t ed per s onal opi ni on. ” Id

. A c c o r d i n g l y, t he I J ’s c o n cl us i on t hatC ao di d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een the pr ocedur es l acks s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. A t oral arg u m en t, the g o v ern m en t co n te n d ed that the IJ’s s t at ement s r egar di ng i nfant i ci de and a bor t i on w er e onl yi nci dent al to h er a d v e rs e c red ibil ityd eterm ination

. W e d isag ree . C ao ’s pr ofes s ed bel i ef t hati nfant i ci de i s m or e r epr ehens i bl e than for ced abor t i on ors t er il izati on w as t he mot i vat i ng fac t orbehi nd her deci s i o n t o s e n d t h e a r t i c l e t o Su e n Yut , whi c h l e d t o t he p e rs e c u tio n a t th e h e a rt o f C a o ’s a s y lu m c la im

. I n s um, b e c a u s e t h e I J e q u a t e d f o r c e d a b o r t i o n a nd i nfa n t i c i d e , s h e d e c l i n e d t o c r e d i tCa o ’ s t e s t i mon ya b o u ther at t empt t o expos e the pr act i ce of i nfant i ci de and r efus ed t o bel i eve the C hinese gov ernm ent w ou l d act t o sup press C ao’s ar t i cle p u b li cizing the s tori es o f inf an ti cide at he r ho sp it al. T h e IJ’s unw i l l i ngnes s t o r ecogni ze thatC ao and other s m i ghtr ecogni ze s uch a di s t i nct i on w as cr i t i cal t o her adver s e cr edi bi l i t y fi ndi ngs as t o near l yeveryas pectof C ao’ s t es t i m onyand w as uns uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd

. 2. T he O t herC r edi bi l i t yD et er m i nat i ons
In a d d iti o n to h e r c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s re lati n g to15 inf an ti cide an d ab o rt ion , the IJ d iscred it ed o ther p o rt ion s o f C ao ’s te s tim o n y . a) I nt er act i ons w i th Suen Y ut
T he I J found an i ncons i s t encybetw een Cao’ s w r i tt e n as y l um ap p li ca ti o n an d h er testi m o n ya t th e h ea ri n g reg ard ing C ao ’s conver s at i on w i t h Suen Y ut

. I n her t es t i m ony , C ao st at ed thatSuen Y utas ked herques t i ons abouti nfant i ci de. I n herw ri t t en as y l um appl i cat i on, C ao s ai d i tw as s he w ho i ni t i at ed the conve r s at i on and t hatt he r epor t erbeca m e “i ndi gnant ” upon l earni ng aboutt he pr act i ce of

i nfant i ci de. T he I J s ei zed on t hi s s m al l di ffe r ence i n t he C ao’ s acc ount , concl udi ng t hat“fr om t he verybegi nni ng, w e’ r e not t al ki ng t he s ame st or y . ” A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e ca nnotfin d suppor tfort he IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t C a o c h a n g e d h e r sto ryin a n ym a ter ial re sp e c t. Fi r s t , C ao’ s w r i t t en as y l um appl i cat i on does nots t at e w ho i ni t i at ed the c o n v ersa ti o n , b u t i n stead n o tes, “[ S u en Y u t and I] ha d a v ery pl eas antconver s at i on. I t ol d hi m t he w r ong[]

- doi ng atourhos pi t al dur i n g the per for m ance of the B i r t h C ont r ol Pl anni ng. H e w as i ndi gnantaf

ter know i t

. ” I ti s notcl earfr om C ao’ s w r i t t en a p p lic a tio n w h o b ro u g h t u p th e s p e c if ic to p ic o f

in f a n tic id e . M or eover , contrary to the I J ’ s concl us i on, t her e i s no i ncons i s t encyi n C ao’ s des cr i pt i on of Suen Y ut ’ s r ea ct i on t o her s t or yabouti nfant i ci de. I n heror al t es t i m ony , C ao cl ai m ed that Suen Y ut r es ponded, “I cannoti m agi ne i n C hi na t odayt her e i s s uch corrupt i on an d

. . . i nfant i ci de. ” I n herw r i t t en appl i cat i on, s he s t at es t hat he gre w “i ndi gnant

. ” T he IJ s eemed t o bel i eve i tw as not pos s i bl e f

o r som eone c oul d gr ow “i ndi gnant ” abouta pr act i ce of w hi ch he a lr ea d yhad gene r al know l edge s t at i ng, “the r es pondent s t at ed i n her w r i t t en as y l um appl i cat i on t hatw hen the r epor t er le a rn e d a b o u t [ th e p ra c tic e o f in f a n tic id e ], h e b e c a m e in d ig n a n t . .

. . Y et , i n hert es t i m ony , t he r es pondenti s veryclea rt hatt he r epor t erknew t hat t hi s w as goi ng on . . . and he w as n’ ts hocked a nd i ndi gnantatal l

. . . . ” W e di s a g r e e t h a tt h e I J h a s i d e n t i f i e d a n yma t e r i al in c o n sis ten c yin C a o ’s s tate m e n t th a t S u e n Y u t b e c a m e “ in d ig n a n t” a f ter d isc u ss in g th e p ra c tice o f in f a n ticid e w ith C a o . F irst, th e re is not hi ng aboutt he t er m “i ndi g n an t” w hi ch r equi r es an el ement of su rprise. M or e i m por t ant l y , t he t er m “i ndi gnant ” i s a tr ans l at i on,16 and thus t hi s one choi ce of w o rd s houl d notbe ac cor ded det er m i nat i ve w ei ght

. T hi s purpor t ed i ncons i s t encyw as m ade m uch of by t he IJ i n hol di ng agai ns t C ao; how ever , t he I J ’ s r el i ance t her eon i s nots uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. b) Let t erf

r om Suen Y

ut
T he I J di d no t b eli ev e thatt he purpor t ed l et t erfr om Suen Y utt o C ao w as au thent i c. T he fi r s tr eas on t he I J doubt ed the authent i ci t yof t hi s l et t er w as t hatthe l et t erl acke d det ai l s r el evant t o C ao’ s as y l um cl ai m and “goes on t o have bas i call y thr ee par agr aphs of pol i t i cal di atr i b e i r r el evantt o t hi s cas e. ” The l et t er di d, h o wev e r , s t a t e i n t h e f i r s tp a r a g r a p h t h a tCa o h a d “ s u f f e r ed a r r e s t , i mp r i s o n me n ta n d t o r tu r e b e c a u s e s h e p r o v i d e d me t h e n e ws cl ues, i n w hich she revi ew ed the fact [] that[t he] C hinese g o v e rn m e n t k ill [ s] in f a n ts b ym e d ica l m e a n s in n a tio n a lity aut onom ous r egi ons fort he purpos e of popul at i o n co n tr ol

. She t h e r e f o r e e s c a p e d t o y o u r c o u n t r yt o a v o i d f u r t h e rp e r s e c u t i o n . ” AR 434. T he r emai nderof the Suen Y ut ’ s l et t ercont ai n ed a ge ner al c riticism o f

th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t an d its su p p re s s io n o f c iv il ri gh t s. T he s econd r eas on t he I J di s count ed the l et t erw as Suen Y u t’s a p p a re n t lac k o f jo u rn a listic s ty le: “ it i s a m a z in g th a t a su p p o se d re p o rte r d o e sn ’t u n d e rsta n d th a t [ h e ] sh o u ld p ro v id e th is C our tw i t h s uppos ed det ai l s and fa ct s . I n ot herw or ds , fr ankl y , t he l et t erdoes n’ teven s ound l i ke one thata rep o rt er w oul d have w ritten .” W h ile c riticiz in g th e let te r , o n th e o n e h a n d , fo r its abs ence of r el evanti nfor m at i on, t he I J w onder ed how S uen Y ut kn ew of ce rt ai n d et ai l s r eg a rding C ao’s as y l um cl ai m becau se C ao’ s or i ginal let t erdet ai l i ng t he fa ct s abouti nfant i ci de w as in te rc e p te d b yth e C h in e s e a u th o ri tie s . W e f in d th e IJ’ s cr iti q u e o f th is l e tter to b e u n f o u n d e d . F irst, Suen Y ut ’ s l et t erdoes notcont ai n anyi nfor m at i on aboutt he cont ent s of C ao’ s i nt erc ep ted l et t er . I ns t ead, Suen Y ut ’ s l et t er s t at es onl y t hat C ao pr ovi ded Suen Y utw i t h “new s cl ues ” aboutt he pr act i ce of

i nfant i ci de, w hi ch coul d r efe r to t he i nfor m at i on di s cus s ed att he part y . M or eover , C ao cl ai m ed t hats he had t al ked w ith S u en Y u t and w ri tt en to h im af ter he r release , b u t th e IJ di s bel i eved thi s expl anat i on beca us e Suen Y utdi d nots ayt hatC ao h a d s u b s e q u e n tly sp o k e n w ith h im in h is le tte r.17 S e c o n d , w e d o n o t b e liev e C a o sh o u ld b e b u r d e n e d w ith S u e n Y e t’s s u p p o se d la c k o f jo u rn a listic a c u m e n o r h is f a ilu re to know w hatfac t s ar e r el evant to C ao’ s as y l um cl ai m under A m er i can l aw . I ndeed, i f the l et t erhad di s pl ay ed s uch s ophi s t i cat i on and had c ont ai ned onl yr el evantfac t s , w e mi ghthave r eas on t o doubt i t s authent i ci t y . W hi l e t he IJ ’ s poi nt aboutt he l ack o f a u th e n tica tio n o f

th e lette r m ig h t ju stif

yg iv in g th is le tter little w ei ght , t her e i s not hi ng aboutt he l et t erw hi ch s houl d cr eat e an ad verse c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n a g a in s t C a o . c) C ao’s Es cape f

r om C hi na T he I J al s o di d notfi nd C ao’ s s t or y of heres cape fr om C hi na to b e c re d ib le. T h e IJ f o u n d it im p lau sib le th a t C a o w a s ab le to r et ai n herpas s por t , l eave herpr ovi nce w hi l e unders ur vei l l ance , get to th e S h a n g h a i airp o rt, an d b rib e a n o f f icia l to o b ta in a n e x it per m i t

. T he I J ’ s i ncr edul i t y , how ever , does not appea rt o be j us t i fi ed in li ghtof C ao’ s cl earexpl anat i on foreac h as pectof her es cape , w hi ch i s notunder m i ned byanyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d. C ao t es t i fi ed thateven tho u gh t he author i t i es s ear ched he r h o m e , the y d id n o t d isc o v e r h e r p a ss p o rt, w h ich sh e h a d sto w e d in a s afe t ydepos i tbox ata bank. Fur t her , w hi l e C ao cl ai m ed s he w as under“s u rve i l l ance ” w hen s he w as r el eas ed fr om det ent i on, t he re c o rd sh o w s tha t “ su rv e ill a n c e ” m e a n t th a t sh e h a d to g o to p u b lic s ecur i t y every w eek t o expl ai n w hat s he di d t hatw eek, nott hather m o v em en ts w ere reg u larl yo b serv ed b ythe a u tho ri ti es. T h u s, there se e m s to b e n o im p lau sib ili tya b o u t C a o ’s s to ryth a t sh e w a s a b le to f le e a f te r h e r w e e k ly in te rv ie w . T h e IJ c o u ld n o t b e liev e th a t C a o c o u ld b rib e a p u b lic of f i c i a l f o r h e r e x i t v i s a , s t a t i n g “ [ Ca o ] ma y wan t t o p r e t e nd t hat it’s a ll o k a y b e c a u se sh e h a d to p a y a b rib e , b u t th e b rib e w a s p a id t o a publ i c offi ci al

. W hyw oul d anypubl i c off i ci al dar e, i n C hi na, t he mostr epr es s i ve gover nm ent w e can i m agi ne[?] ” T hi s ar gum ent i s di s pat ched byouropi ni on i n D ia , 3 5 3 F

. 3 d at 25 2

. T h ere , the IJ r ej ect ed the pet i t i oner ’ s s i m i l arcl ai m t hata G ui n ean pol i ceman hel ped hi m cr os s t he pol i ce bor derfora br i be of 300, 000 G ui nean fra n cs, w h ich w as e q u ival e n t to ab o u t 15 0 U

. S

. D o ll ars. T h e IJ

“ q u e stio n [ e d ] w h yth is p o lice m a n w o u ld risk h is re p u tatio n , n o t to m ent i on, hi s l i fe, t o as s i s t the res pondent , a w ant ed pol i t i cal o p p o n e n t , e v a d e d e t e c t i o n b yt h e p o l i c e . . . f o r. . . $ 1 5 0

. ” We18 r ej ect ed the I J ’ s cont ent i on i n D i a becau se i tw as

n o t e x p lain e d , a n d a p p e a r[ e d ] t o b e p u re c o n jec tu re . It i s n o t o n l yno tbased o n the r ecord, bu t , i n fac t , it c o n t r a v e n e s k e yp a r t s o f i t

. Th e Co u n t r yRe p o r tc o n f i r ms t hatG ui nean pol i ce e xt or tm oneyfr om ci t i zens atr oad b lo c k s a n d th a t co rru p tio n a t ro a d c h e c k p o in ts is w i des pr ead an d “s y s t emat i c. ” I n addi t i on, fi gur es c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d s h o w t h a t $ 1 5 0 U

. S

. i s n e a r l y a quar t erof the per capi t a G D P i n G ui nea f or1999, a s um lik e lytem p tin g to a p o lice m a n in a p o o r c o u n tryre p lete w ith c o rr u p tio n w ith in its p o lic e f o rc e . I d.
A s i n D ia , th e IJ’ s d isb e lief th a t su c h b rib e ryw o u ld o c c u r is contr over t ed byt he St at e D epart m ent ’ s count r ypr ofi l e w hi ch ind icates th at b ri b ery is in fac t w ides p rea d in C h in a . S ee 1998 C hi na Pr o f

i l e , a t2 2

. M o r e o v e r , Ca o t e s t i f i e d t h e b r i b e was “30, 000, ” al t hough s he di d not s peci fy i f thi s fi gur e w as i n yuan or U

. S. dol l ar s . I n ei t herdol l ar s oryuan, how ever , this b r i be w as cl ear l ya s ubs t ant i al s um . G i ven the evi dence in the r ecor d t hat br i beryi s i n factw i des pr ead a m ong C hi nes e off i ci al s and the p o ten tiallylar g e a m o u n t o f m o n e y in v o lv e d , w e f in d , as w e d id in D ia , t hatt he I J ’ s opi ni on t hata publ i c off i ci al w oul d notdar e t ake a br i be i n C hi na i s pur e conj ectur e. d) C ao’s t es t i m ony r egar di ng herdet ent i on T he I J found thatC ao had be en i ncons i s t ent i n r el at i ng w ho had t or tur ed and bea t en herw hi l e s he w as i n det ent i on. I n her w r i t t en appl i cat i on C ao had c l ai m ed s he w as “t or tur ed byt he i nm ates” at“pol i ce[ ] i ns t i gat i on”; how ever , i n heror al t es t i m ony sh e sa id th a t th e p e o p le q u e stio n in g a n d in ter ro g a tin g h e r w e re “ in gener al ” pol i ce offi cer s , w ho “s om et i m es had uni for m s , s om et i m es not

. ” We d o n o tf

i n d a s i g n i f

i c a n ti n c o n s i s t e n c yb e t we e n t h e t wo s t at ement s . A tt he hea r i ng, C ao w as as ked onl yw ho ques t i oned her and notw ho had t or t ur ed h e r— th e sta tem e n t th a t sh e w a s o n ly ques t i oned byoffi cer s i s not i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he s t at ement t hats he w as t or tur ed byi nm at es att he off i cer ’ s i ns t i gat i on.19 e) V aguenes s of

heras yl um appl i cat i on T he I J al s o expr es s ed frus t r at i on t hatC ao’ s w r i t t en as y l um appl i cat i on w as nots uppl ement ed w hen C ao obt ai ned couns el

. T he I J s ay s t hat t he “appl i cat i on does n’ t s eem t o s ay anyt hi ng” and w as

“ in ten tio n a lly v a g u e ,” s u c h th a t th e a p p lica tio n ’s “ trick ylit tle vaguel yw r i t t en mannerand pr es ent at i on” pr event ed herfr om m aki ng cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons o ras s es s i ng t he val i di t yof the cl ai m s . T he I J s t at ed thatC ao ther ebyl efthersel f w i t h an

“ o p p o rtu n ityto n o t o n lya d d in f o rm a tio n to h e r c a se , b u t ac tu a lly c h a n g e th e e n tir e c la im , in te rm s o f th e b a s ic p re s e n ta tio n o f f a c ts .” A rev iew o f th e C ao ’s w ri tt en asy lum ap p li ca ti o n , h o w ev er, d o es n o t sup p o rtthe IJ’s sc athin g ch ara cterizati o n . R athe r, C ao ’s four

- page, t ype- w r i t t en st at ement l ay s out , i n m at er i al t er m s , al l of t he cl ai m s and al l egat i ons m ade i n h er or al t es t i m ony . She des cr i bes i n s om e det ai l how s he di s cover ed th e i nfant i ci de pr act i ces , how t he i nfant i ci de pr ocedur e w as done, h erencount er w i t h Su e n Yut a t t h e p a r t y , t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n o f t h e l e t t e rt o Suen Y u t , h e r d e t e n t i o n , a n d h e re s c a p e t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . We th e re f o re d isa g re e th a t th e a p p lica tio n w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d C a o to

“ c h a n g e h e r e n tir e c la im .” O n e w a yin w h ich th e IJ c laim e d th a t C a o u se d stra teg ica lly open- ended l anguage i s t hatC ao’ s w r i t t en app li cat i on s t at es t hat s he w as “arr es t ed” aft er t he l et t er t o Suen Y ut w as i nt er cept ed but heror al t es t i m onys peci fi ed thats he w as “arr es t ed athom e” a nd pr ovi ded addi t i onal det ai l s aboutt he arr es ti nci dent

. T he I J found t hi s “conve ni entbeca us e ther e i s no w ayt hatt he C our tcan det er m i ne w hethers he i s bei ng cons i s t entw i t h t he r epr es ent at i ons that w ere su p p o sed to h av e b ee n w ri tten d o w n . ” S im il arly , the IJ found s us pici o u s t hatC ao had w r i t t en thats he w as i nt err ogat ed “s ever al t i m es ” w her eas s he r efi ned thi s stat ement i n heror al t es t i m onyt o t he more s peci fi c “s i x t i m es . ” C ao t es t i fi ed, i n r es pons e t o ques t i oni ng fr om t he IJ , t hats he di d noti ncl ude s om e o f thes e det ai l s beca us e s he bel i eved they w e r e “ v e r y s p e c i f

i c p o i n t s ” e n c o m p a s s e d b y h e rm o r e g e n e ra l s t o r y. W hetheror not this i s so, w e agree w i t h C ao thatt he v agu eness ci t ed byt he I J does not cons t i tut e a meani ngful om i s s i on w hi ch s h o u ld le a d th e c o u rt to m a k e a n a d v e rs e c re d i b ility f in d in g . See L o p ez - Re y e s v
. I NS , 7 9 F

. 3 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 1 (9t h C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ) (“[A ]n a p p lica n t’ s te s ti m o n yis n o t p e r se lac k in g in c re d ib ili tysim p ly20 beca us e i t i ncl udes det ai l s t hat ar e not s et for t h in the asy l um appl i cat i on. ”)

. T hes e det ai l s ar e ess ent i al l y col l at er al poi nt s . T he i ncr eas ed s peci fi ci t yi n heror al t es t i m onyas t o cert ai n asp ec ts of her s t o r yd o e s n o tj u s t i f yt h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a tCa o was s om ehow i nt ent i onal l yvague i n herappl i cat i on or t hatC ao w oul d have be en a b le to c h a n g e h e r sto ryin a n ym a ter ial re sp e c t. f) U se o f th e M a il
C ao t es t i fi ed thats he had m ai l ed Suen Y utt he l et t er d e tailin g h e r sto rya b o u t in f a n ticid e th ro u g h re g iste re d m a il o n ly aft ers endi ng a t es tl et t ert hatarr i ved w i t houtdetec ti on. C ao r epr es ent ed that s he bel i eved i t w as “prudent ” t o t es tt he s ecur i t yof t he mai l i n t hi s w ay and t hat , aft er t he fi r s tl et t erw entt hr ough, s he fel ti tw as r el at i vel ys afe t o s end the sec o nd l et t erw i t h t he in f a n tic id e s to ry. T he I J di d notbel i eve that C ao w oul d have mai l ed the l et t er t o Suen Y utknow ing t hatt her e w as a r i s k t hati tcoul d be in ter c e p ted . T h e IJ s a id :
I n ot herw or ds , i f thatfi r s t[l et t er ] w as a tr ial ora t es tof w hetherherm ai l w as goi ng t o be i nt er cept ed, t hen [Cao] abs ol ut el yknew t hati tw as re ckl es s and abs ur d t o put som et hing i n the m ai l t hat w as cri t i cal of th e C h in ese g o v e rn m e n t, w h ic h to le ra te s n o c ri tic is m . This is one r eas on w hy this C ou rt

j ustcan ’t

beli e v e th is s t ory . W hyt he re sp on den t w ou l d choo se such a reckl ess rout e . . . is i nexcus abl e and i l l ogi cal and i tj us tl acks t he r i ng of trut h. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).
T he I J s i m i l ar l y found “r i di cul ous ” C ao’ s cl ai m t hats he s ent a lette r, u p o n h e r re lea se f ro m d e ten tio n , w a rn in g S u e n Y u t n o t to c o m e to m a in lan d C h in a o r to c o n tac t h e r. T h e IJ s ta ted , “It is unbel i evabl e t hatt he r es pondentw oul d have .

. . m ai l ed a w arni ng t o t he s ame r epor t er aft er s he had been s uppos edl y pu t i n jai l f or th re e m o n th s f

o r m a ili n g so m e th in g e lse to h im e a rlier .” T h e IJ d id nots eem t o cr edi tC ao’ s t es t i m onythats he t ook fur t herpr eca ut i ons in w a rn in g S u e n Y u t b y h a v in g a f rie n d m a il th e w a rn in g lette r to S u e n Y u t f

ro m H o n g K o n g , n o t f

ro m m a in la n d C h in a .21 I n t he s ame v ei n, t he I J doubt ed the authent i ci t yof a l et t er al l egedl ys ent fr om C ao’ s hus band i n C hi na t o C ao i n N ew J er s ey o n N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 1

. I n a d d iti o n to in f o rm in g C a o th a t p u b lic sec u ri tyo ff

ici als h ad co m e to th eir ho u se in C h ina lo o k ing fo r he r, t he let t er al so cri t i ci zed t he C hinese gov ernm ent i n o t her r espect s. T h e IJ’s m ain rea so n fo r do u b ti n g the a u then ti cit yo f th e lett er, h o we v e r , wa s t h a ts h e d i d n o tb e l i e v e t h a t“ t h e r e s p o n d e n t ’ s o wn h u sb a n d

. . . ag a in p u t so m e th in g in th e m a il [th a t w a s] h ig h ly c o n tro v e rsia l, w h e n th e re sp o n d e n t h e rse lf tes tifie d th a t h e is s uppos edl ybei ng t hr eat ened a nd s ur veil led and havi ng guns poi nt ed athi m . I don’ tt hi nk t hatherhus band w oul d have mai l ed anyt hi ng contr over s i al i n an enve l ope i f thi s s t or yi s t rue. ” Lat er s he w r ot e that“the C our t j us t can’ tbel i eve thatanybodyw i t h a l i ck of s ens e, i f t hi s s t or y w er e t rue, ” w oul d have m ai l ed a c r i t i cal l et t er from C hina. T he fa ctt hat C ao tes t i fi e d th a ther husb and al so m a iled h e r th e a rre st w a rra n t a n d th e h o sp ital d ism iss a l ce rtific a te fr om C hi na w as al s o a fac t or i n t he I J ’ s deni al of the authent i ci t yof th o s e d o c u m e n ts

. W h il e the IJ w o u ld su relyn o t be c o m p ell ed to cre d itC ao ’s tes tim o n yre g a rd in g h e r a n d h e r hu sb a n d ’s risk s in u sin g th e m a il, i n t hi s cas e, w e fi nd t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on t o be i m pugned byherr het or i c, w hi ch cha r act er i zes C ao’ s and her h u s b a n d ’s c o n d u c t a s “ ri d ic u lo u s ,” “ re c k le s s ,” “ a b s u rd ,” “i nexcus abl e, ” and “ w i t houta l i ck of s ens e. ” W hi l e perhaps t aki ng s uch r i s ks i s unus ual , i ti s noti m pl aus i bl e. I ndeed, w e ca n conce i ve o f m a n yin sta n c e s w h e re a n in d iv id u a l w o u ld b e w ill in g to risk h im o r h e rse lf

to p ro tes t a p o licy w h ich h e o r sh e a b h o rs o r to p ro tec t a f ri e n d o r l o v e d o n e . S e e D ia , 353 F. 3d at255 n. 24 ( ci t i ng a number o f re aso n s tha t a w ife m igh t urg e h e r h u s b an d to f lee the co u n try w i t ho ut herand con cl ud i ng t hat t he I J shou l d h ave co nsi dered t hese “e q u all yli k elysce n arios” ). A t all ev en ts, ev en d ef erring to the IJ’s sk e p ticism o n th is po in t, giv e n th e m a n ye rro rs a lre a d yid e n tifie d in t he I J ’ s anal y s i s , t hi s alon e w oul d notbe s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he I J ’ s over al l adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. C

. App l i cati on of the S ub stan t i al Evidence S t an da rd
Un d e rt h e d e f

e r e n t i a l “ s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ” s t a n d a r d we r equi r e an I J to pr ovi de a “ s ound bas i s - - - w hethers uppl i ed byt he rec o rd e v iden ce o r byb ac k g rou n d k n o w ledg e---t o su p p o rtthe IJ’s4 W h ile w e f in d th a t th e IJ la c k e d su b sta n ti a l e v id e n c e to m ake the adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on, w e not e t hat w e ar e not 22 fi ndi ngs . ” D ia , 353 F. 3d at251. I n G ao w e s t at ed, A dver s e cred ibil it y d eterm inati ons bas ed on sp e c u latio n o r co n

jec tu re , ra th e r th a n o n e v id e n c e in t he r ecor d, ar e r ever s i bl e. G ener al ly , m i nor i ncons i s t enci es and mi norad m i s s i ons t hatr evea l n o th in g a b o u t a n a sy lu m a p p lica n t’s f e a r f o r h is safet yare n o t a n ad equ at e basi s for an adv ers e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. T he di s cr epanc i es m us ti nvol ve th e h e a rt o f

th e a s y lu m c la im

. 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 27 2 (cit ati o n s an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H ere , a “ so u n d b a s is ” is w h o ll ylack ing

. T h e p o rt ion s o f th e IJ’s o p inion relati n g to i n fa n ti cide an d ab o rt ion are a f u n cti o n o f th e IJ’s per s onal not i ons , w hi ch l ed hert o dr aw unt enabl e conc l us i ons about C ao ’ s cl ai m . W i t h r es pectt o t he otherpurpor t ed i ncons i s t enci es and i m pl aus i bi l i t i es , eac h of t hes e has pr oven t o be bas ed, not on evi dence i n t he r ecor d, buton t he s or tof s pecul at i on o r c o n jec tu re th a t G ao p ro s c ri b e s . Fi nal l y , w hi l e w e fi nd I J ’ s co n clus ions w i t h r egar d t o t he p l a u s i b i l i t yo f

Ca o ’ s t e s t i mo n y t o b e u n s u p p o r t e d b yt h e r e c o r d , we re itera te th a t th e IJ f

o u n d C a o ’s o b se rv a b le d e m e a n o r t o b e , “q u ite per fec t

. She i s t he ut t erpr ofes s i onal , very w el l s poken, and the C our t i s convi nced t hat s he i s a w el l educa t ed medi cal pr act i t i oner a s s h e c laim s.” H a v in g e x p lain e d w h yth e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty j udgm ent s ar e unt enabl e, t he I J ’ s fin d ing t hatC ao’ s demeanor s ug g est ed trut hful nes s l eave s no fur t herbas es on w hi ch t o deny C a o ’s c la im

. S e e D ia , 353 F. 3d at252 ( “A bs enta reaso n su ch as i m pl aus i bi l i t yorinconsi s t encybas ed i n t he r ecor d, ort hat [ p e tit i on er’ s] dem eano r i n som e w ayl ed h er t o q uest i on his veraci t y , t he IJ s ho uld not have sum m ari l ydis m i ssed [peti t i on er’ s] test im o n y. . . . ”). I n s um , w e conc l ude thatt he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng is n o t su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o r d . W e w ill t h e r e f o r e g r a n t Ca o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w o f t h e o r d e r o f t h e BI A, vaca t e the B I A ’s o rde r, and r emand t he mat t ert o t he B I A for furt her proceedings. 4fi ndi ng C ao t o be cr edi bl e nordet er m i ni ng C ao’ s eli g i bi l i t yfor r el i ef. T hi s det er m i nat i o n is f ort he B I A i n the fi r s ti ns t ance on re m a n d

. See IN

S v. V entura , 537 U

. S. 12, 16- 17 ( 2002) ( r equi r i ng th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls to re m a n d th e u lti m a te q u e stio n o f e lig ib ili ty f o r re lief to th e B IA ); D ia , 353 F. 3d at260- 61 ( r emandi ng t o t he B IA to clarifyo r su p p lem en t the reco rd w ith o u t r eg ard to the p ri o r, e rr o n e o u s c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n ). 23