2009 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 8-14-2009 

# Xi a Lin v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2532

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Xi a L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 815. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/815NOT P 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. 08- 2532

___________ XI A L I N, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

__________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 99- 025- 250) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

_____________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t12, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed : A ugus t14, 2009 )

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM X i a Li n pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antherpet i t i on.L i n al s o cl ai m ed thats he fe ar ed mi s t r eatm entforhavi ng l eftC hi na i l l egal l y , buts he 1 has notaddr es s ed thatcl ai m i n herbr i ef, s o i ti s w ai ved. See A l aka v. A t t ’ yG en. , 456 F . 3 d 8 8 , 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 2 I. L i n, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n M ar ch 2006 w hen s he w as ei ght een y ear s of age . She di d nothave a val i d entr ydocument , and the G overnm entcomm ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns theron t hatbas i s . L i n conce des r emovabi l i t y , buts eeks as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) on t he gr ounds thats he fe ar s m i s t r eatm entforherpr act i ce of Fal un G ong. 1 T he s ubs t ance of Li n’ s t es t i m onybefor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) i s as fol l ow s . ( A . 82- 110. ) L i n and herpar ent s pr act i ced Fal un G ong, and Li n hel ped them h an d o u t Fa lun G o n g fli ers in p u b li c. O n N o v em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , L in w as h an d ing o u t fl iers w hen s he r ece i ved a c al l on hercel l ul arphone fr om a nei ghbor , w ho had j us ts een f our C hi nes e pol i cemen arr es therpar ent s atthei rhom e. T he nei ghbort ol d L i n t hatthe pol i ce had as ked hi m and herpar ent s forL i n’ s w her eabout s s o t hattheycoul d arr es thert oo, and th a t sh e sh o u ld ru n a w a y . L in f led to a n a u n t’s h o u se . A u th o rities d e tain e d L in ’s p a re n ts forappr oxi m at el yone mont h ( and, acc or di ng t o L i n’ s aff i davi t , beatand i nt err ogat ed them duri ng t hatt i m e) . L i n s t ay ed w i t h herauntforanotherthr ee mont hs aft erthat , t hen f led to th e U n ited S tate s a t h e r m o th e r’s u rg in g . In a d d iti o n to h e r te stim o n y , L in su b m itted a let ter fro m h er m o ther larg elyco rrob o rati n g h er a cc o u n t, the 2 0 0 6 co u n try3

r epor t , and var i ous ar t i cl es des cr i bi ng t he C hi nes e governm ent ’ s m i s t r eatm entof Fal un G on g p ract i t i on ers . T he I J opened Li n’ s hear i ng byacknow l edgi ng thatthe onl ym att eri n di s put e w as w h ethe r L in is “a b o n af ide F alun G o n g p rac ti ti o n er,” b ec au se, i f so , the “ co u n try backgr ound” es t abl i s hes t hats he w oul d fac e per s ecut i on i n C hi na. ( A . 81. ) T he I J deni ed r el i ef, how ever , beca us e s he found thatL i n w as notcr edi bl e and f ai l ed t o pr ovi de su ff ici en t corro b o rati o n . T h e B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) a d o p ted th e IJ’s d e c is io n a n d a d d e d to it b ye m p h a s iz in g c e rt a in p ro v is io n s o f th e R E A L ID A c t o f

2 0 0 5 . L i n p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. II. A. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . “B eca us e the B I A adopt ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on and adde d t o t hatconcl us i on, w e cons i derboth the IJ ’s d e c is io n a n d th a t o f th e B IA .” K a ita v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 2 2 F .3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). “Thi s cour tr evi ew s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, ” and maynotdi s turb t hem unl es s “‘ anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “A l t hough ourr evi ew of a cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i s gener al l ydefe r ent i al , ‘ t hatdefe r ence i s expr es s l ycondi t i oned on s uppor ti n t he r ecor d, ’ ” G abuni y a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 463 F. 3d 316, 321 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) , and “‘ adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons bas ed on s pecul at i on orT he pr ovi s i ons of the R E A L I D A ctr egar di ng cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons and 2 corr obor at i on appl yher e, t he form erbeca us e Li n fi l ed heras y l um appl i cat i on aft erM ay 11, 2005, s ee Chukw u, 484 F. 3d at189, and the l at t erbeca us e theyw er e ef fec t i ve i m m edi at el yupon enac t m ent , s ee i d. at191. T heydo not , how ever , contr ol our di s pos i t i on, w hi ch does nottur n on w hetherthe i ncons i s t enci es on w hi ch the I J r el i ed “go t o the hea r tof the appl i cant ’ s cl ai m , ” i d. at189; 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) , oron any concl us i on r egar di ng t he ava i l abi l i t yof corr obor at i ng evi dence , s ee Chukw u, 484 F. 3d at 191 & n. 2; 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) . “[T] he R E A L I D A ctdoes notchange ourrul es r egar di ng t he I J ’ s dut yt o devel op t he appl i cant ’ s t es t i m ony [. ] ” C hukw u, 484 F. 3d at192. 4 conj ectur e, r athert han on evi dence i n t he r ecor d, ar e r ever s i bl e, ’ ” K ai t a, 522 F. 3d at296 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). In addit i on , al t ho ug h the I J m ayreas on ablyexp ectcorr ob orat i on of ce rt ai n p oint s, I J s have a dut yt o devel op t he r ecor d, and thus m aydenya cl ai m forl ack of corr obor at i on o n lyw h e n “ (1 ) th e IJ id e n tifie s f a c ts f o r w h ich it i s re a so n a b le to e x p e c t th e a p p lica n t to p ro d u c e c o rro b o ra tio n , (2 ) th e a p p lica n t f a ils to c o rro b o ra te, a n d (3 ) th e a p p lica n t f a ils to ad eq u atelyex p lai n that fa il u re.” C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 -92 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 2 B. W e not e i ni t i al l yt hatt he I J t ook overm uch of Li n’ s di r ectexami nat i on and e x a m in e d h e r a g g re ss iv e lya t ti m e s. L in d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e IJ’ s c o n d u c t b yitse lf w arr ant s r el i ef, and w e do notbel i eve thati tdoes ; the I J di d notexhi bi tthe l evel of in te m p e ra n c e o r a p p a re n t p a rt ia lity th a t w e h a v e c o n d e m n e d in o th e r c a s e s , s e e , e .g ., Fi adj oe v. A t t ’ yG en. , 411 F. 3d 135, 154- 57 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and, w i t h t he exc ept i ons di s cus s ed bel ow , herques t i oni ng gener al l ydi d notpr eventL i n fr om es t abl i s hi ng hercas e,In a d d it ion to raisi n g arg u m en t add resse d to the se six g rou n d s, L in inc lud es c u rsory 3 ar gum ent s on t he i s s ue of pa s tper s ecut i on and the mer i t s of herC A T cl ai m . T hes e i s s ues are n o t ade q u atelyarg u ed fo r pu rpo ses o f re v iew , b u t, b ec au se n eith er the IJ no r th e B IA addr es s ed the mer i t s of thes e cl ai m s , L i n i s fr ee t o ar gue them on re m and. 5 cf. K ai t a, 522 F. 3d at301. T he t enorof the I J ’ s ques t i oni ng, how ever , t ogetherw i t h t he s ubs t ance of herconcl us i ons , m i ghtl eave one w i t h t he i m pr es s i on thats he w as s eeki ng j us t i fi cat i ons t o denyL i n’ s cl ai m s . W e paus e her e t o r ei t er at e that“‘ t he pr ocedur es for re q u e stin g a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f d e p o rta tio n a re n o t a s e a rc h f o r ju stif ica tio n to d ep o rt . ’” M u lang a v . A sh cro ft, 3 4 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). T he I J bas ed herdeci s i on on the “t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , ” ( I J D ec. at11, A . 57) , and r el i ed on s i x gr ounds i n par t i cul ar , the fi r s tthr ee goi ng t o L i n’ s cr edi bi l i t yand the re m aind er g o ing to the issue o f c o rrob o rati o n . Itis no t cl ea r w h ethe r th e IJ o r B IA w oul d have vi ew ed anyone orm or e of thes e gr ounds as di s pos i t i ve i n t he abs ence of the other s . T hus , w e l i kel yw oul d be r equi r ed t o r emand even i f onl yone of thes e gr ounds w ere insu p p o rt ab le. S ee C h u k w u , 4 8 4 F . 3 d at 19 1 . A s itturn s o u t, h o w ev er, th e IJ’s rel i ance o n each of these si x g round s ei t her l acks record supp ortor i s ot herw i se pr obl emat i c. 3 T he fi r s tt w o gr ounds r el at e t o t he dat e of Li n’ s par ent s ’ arr es t . Fi r s t , the I J r el i ed on a per cei ved i ncons i s t encybetw een Li n’ s t es t i m onythats he w as handi ng outfl i er s on thatday , w hi ch s he t es t i fi ed w as a Fr i day , and w hatthe I J bel i eved w as L i n’ s pr evi ous tes tim o n yth a t sh e h a n d e d o u t f liers o n lyo n T u e sd a y s. T h a t w a s n o t L in ’s te stim o n y . L in6

fi r s tt es t i fi ed thats he hande d outfl i er s “aboutonce pe rw eek. ” ( A . 85. ) T he I J then t ook overt hi s l i ne of que s t i oni ng fr om couns el , and as ked Li n: “W hatdayof the w eek di d y ou us ual l ypas s outt he fl i er s , w hatdayof the w eek? Y ou s ai d once a w eek. W hatdayof the w eek di d y ou pas s outt he fl i er s ?” ( A . 87) ( emphasi s added) . L i n ans w er ed: “Tuesda y . ” ( I d. ) She w enton t o t es t i fy , how ever , thatherpar ent s w er e arr es t ed on a Fr i day , and that s he had be en handi ng outfl i er s t hatday . ( A . 92. ) T he fol l ow i ng then tr ans pi r ed: Q . Y ou ear l i ers ai d y ou pas s ed outfl i er s on T ues day s . Y ou al s o s ai d y ou pas s ed outfl i er s onl yonce a w eek. So now w hyar e y ou pas s i ng them o u to n F r i d a y? A. Be c a u s e s o me t i me s t h e yc a me o n Tu e s d a y s , s o me t i me s th e yc a me F ri d ay . A n d I on ly , o n lyh an d o u t fl iers af ter (i n d iscern ible). Q . B utw hydi dn’ ty ou t es t i fyear l i erthaty ou al s o pas s ed them out on Fr i day s ? Y ou t es t i fi ed her e t odaythaty ou pas s ed outfl i er s once a w eek o n T uesday s. A . B utear l i erY ourH onordi d notas k m e w hetherornotI pas s ed out f l i e r s o n a n y o t h e rd a y. Q . N o, I as ked y ou w hen did y ou pass out fl i ers . A . I s a y u s u a l l y o n T u e s d a y. Q . W el l , w e coul d go back a nd l i s t en, buty ou di dn’ ts ayus ual l y . Y ou s ai d T ues day s . . . . A nd t he r ecor d w i l l s peak f ori t s el f. Y ou di d not sayu su all yT u esd ay . Y o u said T u esd ay . S o I’l l give y o u o n e m o re o p p o rt u n ity to e x p la in w h yy o u ’r e n o w p a s s in g th e m o u t o n F ri d a y s . A n d y o u d idn ’tv o lun teer tha t dayo f th e w ee k ea rl ier. A . (N o a u d ib le re s p o n s e .) Q. Ok a y . No n - r e s p o n s i v e . No r e s p o n s e , s o s h e d o e s n ’ tk n o w.7

(A .9 2 -9 3 .) T h u s, th e IJ m isc h a ra c ter ize d L in ’s te stim o n yin tw o re sp e c ts— th a t L in handed outl i t er atur e “onl y ” once perw eek, and thats he di d s o onl yon T ues day s , though L i n ans w er ed “Tues day ” i n r es pons e t o t he I J ’ s ow n ques t i on aboutw hi ch dayof the w e e k sh e “ u su a lly ” d id so . T h e n , af ter L in g a v e th a t ex p lan a tio n , the IJ in c o rre c tly r ej ect ed i tand fa ul t ed Li n’ s s i l ence i n t he fa ce of the I J ’ s demand t hats he pr ovi de a di ffe r entone. Fi nal l y , w hen couns el tr i ed t o cl ar i fythe i s s ue byas ki ng L i n addi t i onal ques t i ons , t he I J cuthi m off: “W e’ ve al r eadygone thr ough t hat , okay ? S o w hyar e y ou ask ing h er n o w ? S h e sa y s F ri d ayn o w . I ask ed h er w h ysh e d idn ’tv o lun teer tha t earli er, no r es pons e. So gi ve i tup. L et ’ s m ove on. ” ( A . 94. ) T hus , thi s per cei ved i ncons i s t ency is n o t b a se d o n th e re c o rd , an d th e IJ e rre d in re ly in g o n it. Second, t he I J r el i ed on the W es t ern cal endart o fi nd thatthe dayL i n cl ai m s her par ent s w er e arr es t ed, N ovember13, 2005, w as a Sundayi ns t ead of a Fr i dayas L i n had t es t i fi ed. T he I J r ai s ed thi s i s s ue s ua s pont e i n betw een di r ectand cr os s - exami nat i on i n a w ayt hats eems more adver s ar i al t han i m par t i al . T he I J began byas ki ng L i n a s er i es of q u esti o n s d esig n ed to g et he r t o co m m itto h er p ri o r t esti m o n ythat h er p are n ts w ere a rre ste d o n a F rid a y , the n sp ra n g o n h e r th e f a c t th a t th e W e ste rn c a len d a r sh o w s th a t itis a Sunday . ( A . 101- 05. ) A l ong t he w ay , perhaps r att l ed bythe exc hanges di s cus s ed above , L in f ir st ag ree d that the d ate h ad b ee n a F ri d ayb u t th en test ifi ed “[ a]c tually , I’m n o t sure w hatdayw as t hatday . ” ( A . 102. ) T he I J then es t abl i s hed thatthe dayhad bee n a s chool d a y , a n d th a t L in w e n t to s c h o o l o n ly o n M o n d a yth ro u g h F ri d a ya n d s o m e tim e s S a tu rd a y .T h e Go v e r n me n ta r g u e s t h a tL i n ’ s c o u n s e l , d e s p i t e r a i s i n g th i s a r g u me n to n r e v i e w, 4 “conc eded” att he hea r i ng t hatL i n’ s expl anat i on r egar di ng the C hi nes e ca l endarw as “f alse.” A fter L in testi fied that “[ t] h e C h ines e c alen d ar is diff ere n t th an the W estern cal endar , ” the I J as ked Li n’ s couns el , “I s thatr i ght , day s of the w eek a r e di ffe r ent ?” and he r epl i ed “I don’ tt hi nk s o. ” ( A . 104- 05. ) C ouns el ’ s s t at ementw as notan af fi r m at i ve conce s s i on and w as notevi dence , as the I J acknow l edged bygoi ng on t o as k L i n i f s he had a Chi nes e ca l endarfort he r ecor d. ( A . 105. ) W e, of cour s e, expr es s no opi ni on on this i ssu e in th e f

ir st i n stan ce . W e a lso e x p ress n o o p inion o n w h ethe r, if L in’s (c o n tin u e d ...) 8 ( I d. ) T he I J concl uded herl i ne of que s t i oni ng bys ay i ng: “W el l , l etm e j us t , al l thi s has been t o s how t hatN ovember13t h, 2005, w as on a Sunday . A l l r i ght ? H er e’ s the cal endar . W e’ l l puti ti n t he r ecor d. ” ( A . 104. ) W hen the I J as ked Li n t o expl ai n, s he test ifi ed that “[ t] h e C h ines e c alen d ar is diff ere n t th an the W estern ca lend ar.” (Id.) T h e IJ as ked Li n i f s he had a C hi nes e ca l endarforthe r ecor d. L i n di d not , and the I J di d not i nqui r e furt her . I n herdeci s i on, t he I J t ook admi ni s t r at i ve not i ce thatthe dat e i n ques t i on w as a Sundayand s t at ed thatL i n’ s expl anat i on r egar di ng the C hi nes e ca l endarw as “totall yu n su b stan ti ated b yan yp roo f.” (IJ D ec . at 12 , A . 5 8 . ) T h e IJ e rre d in re

jec tin g L in ’s e x p lan a tio n so lelyb e c a u se sh e d id n o t co rro b o ra te i t . L i n had no r eas on t o expec tt hatt he I J m i ghts ua s pont e r ai s e an i s s ue r egar di ng a day of the w eek thatm i ghtr equi r e cons ul t at i on of a Chi nes e ca l endar , and the I J di d not addr es s w hetheri tw as r eas onabl e t o expec ts uch corr obor at i on. See C hukw u, 484 F. 3d a t 1 9 1 -9 2 . E v e n if

it w a s, th e IJ’ s d u tyto d e v e lo p th e re c o rd re q u ire d h e r to a llo w L in to o b ta in a c a le n d a r o r a t le a s t in q u ir e f u rt h e r b e f

o re b a s in g h e r d e n ia l o f re lie f o n th is is s u e . See i d. at192. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 expl anat i on ul t i m at el yi s s how n t o be i nacc ur at e, thatdi s cr epanc ybyi t s el f w oul d w arr ant the d enial of h er cl ai m s. 9 T h ird , the IJ r e lied o n a p rio r im m ig ra tio n in ter v iew , d u rin g w h ich L in a p p a re n tly s ai d thatherpar ent s pr act i ced Fal un G ong butnotthats he di d t oo. T he I J and the part i es have r efe rr ed t o t hi s i nt ervi ew al t ernat el yas an “a i rpor ti nt ervi ew , ” a “ det ent i on in ter v iew ,” a “ c re d ib le f e a r in ter v iew ,” a n d f

in a lly , in th e G o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f in th is C our t , as L i n’ s “i ni t i al i m m i gr at i on i nt ervi ew . ” The r ecor d does notcont ai n a tr ans cr i pt o r o th e r d o c u m e n tatio n o f th e in ter v iew itse lf

, an d th e o n lyre c o rd re f e re n c e s to th is in ter v iew a re th e G o v e rn m e n t co u n se l’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f its c o n ten ts. (A .1 0 5 -0 6 .) L in d o e s n o td i s p u t e t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s , b u tth e I J e r r e d i n r e l y i n g o n th e m. T he I J ’ s r el i ance on t he i nt ervi ew i s pr obl emat i c i ni t i al l ybeca us e ther e i s no d o c u m e n tatio n o f

th e in ter v iew in th e re c o rd . “T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r [ a d isc re p a n c yw ith an airpo rtinterview ] co n sti tutes su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe IJ’s a n d B IA ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons , i ti s nece s s aryt o exami ne the ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch the s t at ementw as gi ven. ” Fi adj oe, 411 F. 3d at159. T hus , “[w ] e r epea t edl yhave emphasi zed thatw e ar e ‘ gener al l ys kept i cal ’ of us i ng r epor t s of as y l um i nt ervi ew s as t he b a sis f o r f in d in g a n a p p lica n t lac k s c re d ib ili tyw h e re th e c o n tex t f o r su c h in ter v iew s is uncl ear . ” K or yt nyk v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 272, 289 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n t hi s cas e, w e do n o t ev e n h a v e a re p o rt. S e e id . at 2 8 9 -9 0 (re f u sin g to u p h o ld a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d eterm ination b ase d o n interview w h o se c o n tents w ere n o t of rec o rd).T h e re is n o re c o rd su p p o rt f o r th a t co n c lu sio n . T h e o n lyre f e re n c e in th e re c o rd to L in 5 havi ng t ol d t he i nt ervi ew ert hats he hande d outFal un G ong l i t er atur e i s thi s s t at ementby th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o u n se l, w h ich L in d id n o t ad o p t: Q . Y o u w e re n ’t sc a re d to tell th e o f f ice r th a t y o u h e lp e d y o u r p a re n ts outbypas s i ng outpamphl et s , buty ou w er e s car ed t o t el l the off i cer t haty ou pr act i ced Fal un G ong, i s thatw haty ou’ r e s ay i ng? A . I w as afr ai d t hathe w i l l s end me back. (A . 1 0 7 . ) 10 M or eover , t he I J ’ s r efus al t o acc eptL i n’ s expl anat i on forthi s appar entdi s cr epanc y is p ro b lem a tic a s w e ll. W h e n c o n f ro n ted w ith th e d isc re p a n c yo n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , L in expl ai ned, i n r es pons e t o s ever al ques t i ons : “I w as s car ed atthatt i m e. I dar e nott el l t hem I w a s p ra c tic in g F a lu n G o n g . . . . [ A ]t th a t tim e I w a s s c a re d to s e e in g s tr a n g e rs . . . . I w as afr ai d t hathe w i l l s end me back. ” ( A . 106- 07. ) T he I J found thi s expl anat i on

“ in c re d u lo u s [ sic ]” b e c a u se , ac c o rd in g to th e IJ, L in “ a c k n o w led g e d h e r a c tiv ityw ith F alun G o n g in p assin g o u t fl iers. ” (IJ D ec . at 12 , A . 5 8 . ) T h e IJ a lso f o u n d that L in’s 5 expl anat i on “def

i ed cr edi bi l i t ybeca us e the veryr eas on r es pondentcame t o t he U ni t ed St at es w as t o fr eel ypr act i ce Fal un G ong, ” and he rfea rof t el l i ng the I m m i gr at i on offi cer th a t sh e h a d p ra c tice d in C h in a w a s “ in c o n c e iv a b le.” (Id .) A s w e h a v e re p e a ted ly re c o g n ize d , h o w e v e r, “a n a rriv in g a lien . . . m a yb e re lu c tan t to re v e a l f u ll i n f o rm a tio n in h is o r h e r f

irst m e e tin g w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t.” F iad jo e , 4 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 5 9 . T h u s, th e re is nothi ng “i nconce i vabl e” a boutL i n’ s r el uct ance t o t el l the i nt ervi ew erm or e than s he di d, w hat evert hatm ayhave be en.11

Four t h, t he I J not ed thatt he corr obor at i ng l et t erfr om L i n’ s m otherdi d notm ent i on thatL i n s pentfourm ont hs i n hi di ng atheraunt ’ s hous e, and conc l uded thatthe omi s s i on “c o n tr ad ict s” L in’s test im o n ythat sh e d id so . T h e lett er f rom L in’s m o ther, ho w ev er, c o rro b o ra tes L in ’s p ra c tice o f F a lu n G o n g a n d h e r p a re n ts’ a rre st, a n d g o e s o n to sta te that“[a ] ft erI w as r el eas ed, I knew m ydaught erw as hi di ng out s i de. She dar ed notgo b a c k . I d e c id e d to se n d m yd a u g h ter a b ro a d .” (A .1 1 5 .) T h is le tter d o e s n o t “c o n tra d ict” L in’s test im o n ym ere lyb ec au se itd o es n o t con tai n the s am e lev el of d etail . M o reo v er, L i n expl ai ned thatherm ot herm ayhave thoughtthatdet ai l uni m por t antbeca us e her aunt ’ s hous e w as veryfaraw ay . ( A . 95- 96. ) T he I J di d notacknow l edge thatexpl anat i on ordi s cus s w hys he found i tunacc ept abl e. See C hukw u, 484 F. 3d at192. F if th , th e IJ n o te d th a t L in h a d n o t p ro v id e d a n yc o rr o b o ra tio n f ro m h e r a u n t. W hen as ked w hy , L i n t es t i fi ed thatheraunthad a s t r oke s hor t l yaft erL i n came t o t he U n it ed S tat es a n d co u ld n eith er sp ea k n o r w ri te. (A . 9 4 . ) T h e IJ stated that “[ t] h e C o u rt fin d s tha t th is w as ju st a co n v en ient ex cu se.” (IJ D ec . at 13 , A . 5 9 . ) T h ere is no rec o rd s uppor tfort hi s i ns ens i t i vel y - phr as ed “f i ndi ng. ” The I J w enton t o s t at e that , as s um i ng L i n’ s expl anat i on w er e true, t hen i tw oul d pr ovi de al l the more r eas on t o expec ther m o ther’s lett er to m en ti o n the a u n t’ s role in h iding L in. A s ex p lai n ed ab o v e, ho w ev er, the I J di d notdi s cus s w hys he found Li n’ s expl anat i on r egar di ng herm other ’ s l ett er u n a c c e p ta b le . F inally , the IJ f

o u n d that L in “w as n o t believa b le w h en sh e e x p lai n ed w h ythereA l though w e as s um e thatL i n’ s pr act i ce of Fal un G ong i n t he U ni t ed St at es m i ghthave 6 s om e r el evanc e t o hercl ai m s , w e not e, and the B I A s houl d beari n m i nd on r emand, t hat her cl ai m i s based o n h er pr act i ce of F al un G on g in C hina and on C hinese aut ho ri t i es’ effo rt s t o arr esther on thatbasi s. 12 w as no one t o corr obor at e herpr act i ce [ of Fal un G ong] i n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” ( I d. ) T he 6 I J ’ s tw o r eas ons forr ej ect i ng L i n’ s expl anat i on ar e bas ed on s pecul at i on, noton t he re c o rd . L in tes tifie d th a t sh e p ra c tice s F a lu n G o n g a t h e r h o m e , w h ich sh e sh a re s w ith o n e o th e r p e rs o n , a n d th a t h e r h o u s e m a te h a d n e v e r w itn e s s e d h e r p ra c tic e F a lu n G o n g . ( A . 97. ) T he I J appar ent l yfound thatci r cumst ance unbel i evabl e, butthe r ecor d cont ai ns no bas i s t o concl ude thatL i n’ s hous e mat e nec es s ar i l yw oul d have s een he rpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong. T he I J appar ent l yfound unbel i evabl e Li n’ s t es t i m onythats he di d notknow herhous e mat e’ s name as w el l , t hough t he I J di d notm ent i on L i n’ s t es t i m onythats he k n o w s h im b yh is s u rn a m e “ L i.” (A .9 7 .) L i n al s o t es t i fi ed abouta fr i end of he r s w ho had hel ped herfi nd the hous e, and t es t i fi ed thats he had notm ent i oned herpr act i ce of Fal un G ong t o t hatfr i end bec aus e s he co n side red ita “ p ri v ate issue ” a n d “d idn ’tw an t t o b o ther (ind iscern ible). ” (A . 9 9 -10 0 . ) She fur thert es t i fi ed thats he fe l ta “s hadow i n [her ] m i nd” r egar di ng Fal un G ong i n l i ght of w hathappene d t o heri n C hi na. ( A . 100. ) T he I J found thi s t es t i m ony“i nexpl i cabl e” b e c a u se L in h a d p ra c tice d o p e n lyin C h in a e v e n th o u g h it w a s illeg a l, ca m e to th is countryt o pr act i ce ope nl y , and i tw as thus “notunder s t andabl e w hys he w oul d hi de her pr act i ce of

Fal un G ong fr om s uch a f r i end. ” ( I J D ec. at13- 14, A . 59- 60. ) T hi s concl us i on13

m i s char act er i zes L i n’ s t es t i m ony . She di d nots aythats he “hi d” herpr act i ce f r om her f rie n d , o n lyth a t sh e d id n o t sh a re it b e c a u se sh e c o n sid e re d it a “ p riv a te is su e .” T h is concl us i on al s o i s bas ed on s pecul at i on aboutthe natur e of the fr i ends hi p. In su m , ea ch o f th e g rou n d s o n w h ich th e IJ d en ied L in’s claim s eith er lack s rec o rd s uppor tori s ot herw i s e pr obl emat i c. T he B I A di d nots t at e anyi ndepende ntbas i s for deny i ng L i n’ s cl ai m s . I ns t ead, i tm er el ynot ed the pr ovi s i ons of the R E A L I D A ct g o v e rn in g c re d ib ili tya n d c o rro b o ra tio n a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f i n d i n g “ i s s u f

f i c i e n t l ys u p p o r t e d b yth e r e c o r d . ” T h o u g h o u rr e v i e w i s d e f e r e n t i a l , we a re c o n stra in e d to d isa g re e . W e d o n o t su g g e st th a t L in in f a c t h a s s h o w n th a t sh e is e lig ib le f o r a s y lu m o r e n title d to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l o r o th e r r e lie f u n d e r C A T . Instea d , w e c o n clud e o n lythat the g rou n d s o n w h ich th e IJ a n d B IA d en ied h er c lai m s are nots uppor t abl e. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the B I A ’ s or derof r emoval and r emand for further proceedings.