Opinion ID: 787659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inconsistencies with the Country Report and Profile

Text: 11 The IJ may consider the State Department's reports in evaluating a petitioner's credibility. See Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.1999). The IJ may use a country report as supplemental evidence to discredit a generalized statement made by the petitioner but not to discredit specific testimony regarding his individual experience. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2001) (upholding the BIA's reliance on the country report's statement that there were no known instances of enforced exile in Morocco and that the Moroccan government offered self-imposed exiles amnesty, to refute the petitioner's statement that the government commonly forced political dissidents to leave Morocco and to sign a document promising never to return). The IJ, however, may not discredit a petitioner's testimony based on a statement in a State Department report that is itself based on speculation or conjecture. See Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that the State Department's assertion that [an Indian political party's] many electoral successes belie the assertion that it is not possible for a [member of that political party] to live peaceably in India amounted to nothing more than that office's speculation about the effect [that political party's] electoral gains will have on existing political persecution). Moreover, as a predicate, the petitioner's testimony must be inconsistent with facts contained in the country report or profile before the IJ may discredit the petitioner's testimony. We conclude that there are no inconsistencies here.
12 The IJ found that the Country Report and Profile were inconsistent with Zheng's testimony that Wen was forced to abort their first child. Specifically, the IJ stated, 13 The Country Reports and the Profile are devoid of any reports regarding a couple required to undergo an abortion when they had no children at all. In fact, the Country Reports seem inconsistent with [Zheng's] rendition of the facts ... in that the first child is allowed, and it is only after one child has been born and a second child is anticipated that an abortion might become probable. In fact, since [Zheng's] first child was a daughter it seems further unlikely that he and his wife would have been required to undergo an abortion since the policy seems to be that they would be permitted to apply for a second child. 14 The IJ relied on the following description of family planning policies in Chinese urban areas: 15 Fujian Province —The policy is generally a one-child policy. However, in some southern urban areas, if the parents' first child is female, they may apply after a set number of years (usually 4) to conceive a second child in the hope that it will be male. Fujian province's lax enforcement of family planning rules has been criticized in the official press. Country Profile at 21. 3 16 However, this policy does not necessarily apply to couples who are not legally married. Rather, different rules apply to unmarried couples. For instance, the Country Report says, Unmarried women cannot get permission to have a child. See Country Report, available at http://www.state.gov./www/global/ human_rights/1999_hrp_report/ china.html (last visited July 14, 2004). Thus, even though married couples are permitted to have one child and maybe even two if their first child is a girl, unmarried couples are not permitted to have any. Because Zheng and Wen were not legally married, the town officials may have prohibited them from having any children, essentially treating them as an unmarried couple. Moreover, the Country Report states, The U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou is not aware of any forced abortions of ... children of couples with an early marriage (but could not exclude the possibility). Because the Country Report explicitly acknowledges the possibility of such a forced abortion, Zheng's testimony that Wen was forced to abort their child is not inconsistent. 17 Furthermore, according to the Country Report and Profile, China does not have a uniform family planning policy across the country. Rather, these policies vary from region to region and township to township because they are implemented through local regulations. See Country Report (The national family planning policy is implemented through provincial and local regulations.); Country Profile at 21 (Family planning committees are generally in place down to the township level, but implementation at the village level, which is relevant to most asylum applicants, is the responsibility of local officials.). Although the Country Profile tries to capture some of the variation from locality to locality by breaking up its descriptions into regions, it is not so comprehensive as to describe the polices and practices in each city, let alone each township or village. Thus, the policies described in the Country Report or Profile for each region must be read in light of local variation in policies. 18 The Country Report and Profile also acknowledge that abuses occur and corrupt officials may deviate from the official policy. For instance, the Country Profile says, The Government prohibits the use of force to compel a person to submit to abortion or sterilization, but later states, Poor supervision of local officials who are under intense pressure to meet family planning targets sometimes results in abuse such as forced abortion and sterilization. Country Profile at 25. Similarly, the Country Report says, In a meeting with foreign diplomats, [a] senior official did not deny that abuses may have occurred, but insisted that coercion was not the norm, nor government policy. . . . Therefore, regardless of what the official policy may be in a particular township regarding the number of children a couple is allowed to have, it is possible that corrupt officials may deviate from that policy and force a couple to abort their child even if the couple has not surpassed the legally permissible number of children. In sum, when read in proper context, the Country Report and Profile are not inconsistent with Zheng's testimony that Wen was forced to undergo an abortion. 4
19 The IJ found an inconsistency between Zheng's testimony about the amount of fines levied against him and the amount described in the Country Profile. The IJ stated,[I]t seems that the policy is for a one time fine of twenty to forty percent of their annual income. [Zheng] testified that he and his wife were fined 20,000 RMB. That seems like an exorbitant amount considering the fact that [Zheng] testified that his annual income was simply no more than 6,000 RMB. 20 The IJ relied on a description in the Country Profile under the subheading Zhejiang Province, which states, [C]ouples that are not underage but cohabit and have an unauthorized child are liable to a one-time fine of 20 to 40 percent of their annual income. Country Profile at 23 (emphasis added). By its plain language, this passage does not describe the fine for couples who are underage. Thus, it is not inconsistent with Zheng's testimony because Zheng and Wen were an underage couple. Nonetheless, under the same subheading, the Country Profile previously states, If [couples under the legal age for marriage] have a child they are liable to a fine of between 20 and 50 percent of their annual income until they legally register their marriage. Id. A fine of 20,000 RMB would still be significantly greater than 20 to 50 percent of Zheng's and Wen's annual income. 21 The subheading, however, indicates that the descriptions quoted above are referring to the amount of the fine in Zhejiang province, not Fujian province. Because family planning policies can vary significantly from region to region in China, the Country Profile's description of the fine amount in Zhejiang province does not create an inconsistency with Zheng's testimony because Zheng lived in Fujian province. 22 Indeed, the Country Report and Profile describe much higher fines in Fujian. Under the subheading Fujian Province, the Country Profile says, The standard fine is twice a family's gross annual income. Country Profile at 26. The Country Report gives an even higher amount: In Quanzhou, Fujian province, the fine for violating birth quotas is three times a couple's annual salary. . . . A fine of 20,000 RMB is roughly three times Zheng's and Wen's combined annual salary of 6,000 RMB. The amount of Zheng's fine and the amount described in the Country Report and Profile are not significantly different. 23 To the limited extent that the amounts differ, Zheng's testimony is not inconsistent with the Country Report and Profile because they contain two other facts that could reasonably account for the difference in amount. First, the Country Report acknowledges that family planning fines vary depending on locality. See Country Report (Fines for giving birth without authorization vary....). Thus, the fine amount in the town of Lunchen could be slightly higher or lower than in other towns or cities in Fujian province. Second, the Country Report recognizes that family planning fines are subject to abuse by corrupt officials. See id. (Corruption related to family planning fines is a widespread problem.). Hence, corrupt town officials may have demanded that Zheng and Wen pay a fine higher than the amount authorized by local regulations.
24 The IJ found it unlikely that both [Zheng] and his wife would be subjected to sterilization, reasoning that the policy in China for a couple who have had more than one child [is] that one of the couple be sterilized. According to the Country Profile, there is no requirement that a specific member of the couple have the appropriate sterilization procedure, but generally it is the women who have the procedure performed. Country Profile at 24. However, Zheng's testimony is not inconsistent with the Country Profile, because Zheng never testified that both he and Wen were required to be sterilized. Rather, he testified that town officials told his parents to ask myself or my wife to go to the office and be sterilized. (Emphasis added). The government concedes that the IJ misstated Zheng's testimony.