Opinion ID: 3023506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Feng’s and Husband’s Presentations

Text: The IJ and BIA also rested their adverse credibility findings on the idea that Feng’s husband’s oral testimony was unreliable because it was not consistent with that of his asylum 3 The IJ’s disbelief that Feng would suffer physical pain nine years after the alleged sterilization is similarly speculation that is not based on any record evidence. 8 application and that Feng’s own testimony was incredible because it was not consistent with her husband’s asylum application. This credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. We agree that Feng’s husband was not credible. While the discrepancy existing between Feng’s husband’s asylum application (3000 RMB) and oral testimony (5000 RMB) regarding the amount of his family’s fine was minor, see Yang v. Ashcroft, 104 Fed. App’x 259, 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion) (minor discrepancy between accounts of amount of fine paid for release from prison did not support adverse credibility finding), his testimony and asylum application were inconsistent regarding (1) whether the family actually paid the fine; (2) whether the family’s home was destroyed by Chinese officials on account of its failure to pay the fine; and (3) whether Feng’s IUD was inserted and then removed after the birth of their first child. Feng’s husband claimed these discrepancies were the fault of the agency that filled out his application, but given the gravity of these events, we cannot agree that the discrepancies were the fault of the agency. See Xie, 359 F.3d at 243 (serious inconsistencies between agency-prepared asylum application and testimony regarding treatment by government officials basis proper for adverse credibility). Having found Feng’s husband not credible, the IJ and BIA then found Feng incredible because of the discrepancies between her presentation and her husband’s asylum application. The BIA’s conclusion that Feng was not credible because her presentation was not consistent with that of her incredible husband makes no logical sense because it would 9 be incongruous for the BIA to find Feng credible had her presentation agreed with that of her incredible husband. The BIA appears to “want it both ways” in that Feng is incredible because her account does not agree with that of her incredible husband, but she also would necessarily be incredible if her account did agree with that of her incredible husband. We can not approve of such an anomalous result, and accordingly, we cannot agree that Feng’s failure to testify in accordance with her incredible husband dooms her applications for relief. Putting these logical inconsistencies aside, Feng’s claim that she underwent forced sterilization was not contradicted by her own or her husband’s presentation; both of them stated in their asylum applications and oral testimony that she had suffered an involuntary sterilization. The discrepancies between her presentation and that of her husband concern events (IUD implantation, amount of fine) apart from the critical question of whether her sterilization was involuntary and thus lie outside of the “heart” of her asylum claim. See Gao, 299 F.3d at 272; see also Jiang v. Att’y Gen., 2005 WL 3527845, at  (3d Cir. Dec. 27, 2005) (husband’s mistake regarding date of wife’s IUD implantation did not go to heart of claim that wife had undergone involuntary sterilization). Accordingly, these discrepancies were not a proper basis on which to rest an adverse credibility finding.