Opinion ID: 3012112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Report Cards

Text: The IJ’s determination essentially depends on his analysis of the report cards that were offered as supporting evidence by Gao’s attorney. The documents were presented in a booklet form. Grades and comments were entered for each semester, with the book returned to the school for entry of new records after each semester. The individual _________________________________________________________________ Q: Well, ma’am, you weren’t a member of Falungong you testified earlier, correct? A: I was a messenger only, however, the government said that messenger is the, the worst person because they are the, the people who help communicate. [A.R. 122]. Q: You can do some Falungong now? A: I don’t know the details. I watch people doing it, because my job is just a messenger. [A.R. 148]. 12 reports have traditional columns of grades for various subject matter, as well as a comments section where a teacher or administrator could enter more specific written notes. In each of the three years from 1998 to 2000, Gao’s report cards included handwritten comments which reference activities or exercises that were distracting her from her schoolwork. See supra note 3. The following summarizes the written comments for each semester and the IJ’s comments and conclusions based on Gao’s testimony concerning those written reports. In Gao’s report card for the spring of 2000, the comments said: [C]lassmates say she often joins those outdoor social exercises. [A.R. 173]. The IJ had two problems with this comment. First, according to the respondent’s own testimony she was not involved in any outdoor social exercises. She was a messenger doing administrative type work for an organization whose members were doing outdoor social exercises. [A.R. 45]. Second, similar comments are made on her report card the previous semester, the semester before that, and the semester before that, going all the way back to January 19 of 1999 relating to the fall semester of 1998. [A.R. 45] . The IJ apparently found these comments inconsistent with Gao’s testimony on cross-examination, where she explained that she began as a messenger for her aunt in March of 2000, and that prior to that she had been following her aunt to Falun Gong meetings since 1998, but that the school was not aware of this activity. [A.R. 121]. The suggestion by the IJ is that the reference to social exercises in the comments cannot be a reference to Falun Gong activities. The January 1999 report, for the fall semester 1998, said that Gao shows more interest in those body exercise [sic.], feels strong for the class honor, but has been absent for 18 times because of joining those exercise [sic.]. [A]fter receiving criticism from the party and administration department of school we hope that she will correct those mistakes and get better progress. [A.R. 164]. The IJ pointed out that when questioned about the January 1999 comments, Gao said she did not believe they had anything to do with Falun Gong, but instead related to other exercises like jumping, jogging and t’ai chi. Gao also said 13 that she did not receive the reported criticism. The IJ stated: [t]he Court finds this not very plausible. If the system is so strict that it is going to say that she should not be doing physical exercises outside school, exercises that have nothing to do with the castigated Falungong, and then such criticisms never occur, the apparent authoritarianism of the Chinese government is revealed to be much less strict than the booklet she presented would indicate it otherwise is. [A.R. 47]. The June 1999 report said, always joins those outdoor exercise that has been late for class many times. [A.R. 167]. When questioned about this report, Gao said that it did not relate to the Falun Gong activities as far as she knew. Then the IJ noted: She began to equivocate a little bit about her original written statement [her application]. She said that she was not a formal messenger at that time[meaning June 1999], but just followed her aunt around. In other words, she was implying that perhaps this had something to do with her Falungong activities as well, although she didn’t simply come out and state that. The fact that she equivocated about this leads the Court to question whether the comments that we have in her report card reflect actual comments that were made, and caused the Court to question whether she herself may be aware that those comments do not necessarily reflect comments that were actually made at the time. At the very least, saying that she was following her aunt around earlier does not succeed in showing that the school knew about these Falungong activities and called them joining those outdoor exercises that deserved notation on her report card, nor does it show that she actually was involved in Falungong activities. Her statement says that her aunt recruited me as a messenger to the Falungong in my area in March 2000. [A.R. 48, Emphasis Added]. 14 The problem with the IJ’s analysis is that the IJ does not distinguish between Gao’s account of her involvement with the Falun Gong and how she believed the school perceived those activities. Gao consistently stated that in 1998 she began to follow her aunt and to attend meetings of the Falun Gong, without ever becoming a member. It was not until March 2000 that she assumed a formal position as a messenger. It was only after she assumed the formal role of messenger that she claims she was specifically criticized and singled out for persecution. Her statement, attached to her application, that the IJ references in the above-quoted excerpt, begins its narrative only in March 2000; testimony as to the background that led up to her formal association does not contradict her application statement which begins in 2000. See Aquilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1382 (9th Cir. 1990) (credibility was questioned because oral testimony included information not set forth in his asylum application, but court concluded that failure to file an application form that was as complete as might be desired cannot, without more, properly serve as the basis for a finding of a lack of credibility). The IJ does not focus on any differences between Gao’s application and her testimony. Instead he focuses on her attempts to reconcile what is in her report cards with her actual activity. The IJ sees inconsistencies between Gao’s statements and the statements of others, not among Gao’s various recountings of her experience, which appear consistent. Gao attempted to explain why the school would have a different record of events than she claimed transpired. When asked directly about whether the school knew she was following her aunt to meetings, Gao said no, because they thought she was too young and she had denied that she was in the group. However, because Gao believed she had fooled the school as to the nature of her activity does not mean the school actually believed her story. The inconsistency between her testimony and the school reports is therefore, at best, speculative. The IJ offers a possible reason why the report cards contradict her story, namely, that their veracity should be doubted. The IJ stated that the Court finds it hard to believe, actually, that the comments about her involvement 15 in those outside activities were indeed put in her note booklet by the school itself. [A.R. 51]. However, neither the IJ, nor either counsel, made any attempt to identify who made the alleged alterations in her school booklet. 6 If the IJ believes that the alteration occurred and it impacts on his finding of lack of credibility, he must state a reason and detail with specificity the issues of non-credibility. See Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1987) (trier of fact who rejects a witness’s positive testimony because in his or her judgment it lacks credibility should‘offer ‘a specific, cogent reason for [his] disbelief.’ ’ ) (internal citations omitted). He does not. Finally, having doubted the veracity of the reports cards, the IJ then relies on them in concluding that Gao did not truly participate in Falun Gong and therefore implies that any discipline that Gao received was not a result of such affiliation. The IJ says that the phrase joining those outdoor exercises does not show that she was participating in Falun Gong. [A.R. 48]. This is not only inconsistent with the IJ’s conclusion that the report cards were suspect, but also appears to be a complete non sequitur, since Gao never claimed that the report cards showed she was an active member in Falun Gong prior to her becoming a messenger in March 2000. She equivocated only when attempting to explain her guess as to what was on the minds of school officials, whom she believed were not suspicious of her activities at that particular time. The IJ failed to make this crucial distinction and finds contradiction where none exists in her testimony: The respondent’s testimony boiled down to simply saying that the school was suspicious of her, but that sounds a little bit more like a plat device for dealing with the fact that she could neither say that she was in Falungong at that time nor say she was not, because evidence in the hearing she had here was contradictory _________________________________________________________________ 6. Those who handled the documents included the school, Gao (before she left China), Gao’s parents in China, Gao’s relatives in the United States, and Gao’s lawyer. The identity of the person who altered the documents, if they were indeed altered, would have different implications for Gao’s credibility. 16 on this question, and to deal with the contradiction she said that the school officials in effect were suspicious but did not know. [A.R. 50]. Contrary to this statement by the IJ, Gao’s testimony is not contradictory as to the nature of her relationship with the Falun Gong. Her testimony was that she began following her aunt around in 1998, but that she did not believe the school knew of this activity. In March 2000, she began her role as a messenger, which she believes the school discovered when a classmate reported her activity. It was this discovery that she alleges led to her expulsion and subsequent detention. If Gao misinterpreted the school’s early vague statements about social exercises to mean something other than Falun Gong, that does not make her story contradictory. Before her expulsion and arrest, she seems to have believed that the school did not know of her informal links to the Falun Gong. This is what she said in her testimony. In hindsight, the record indicates the school may have been more suspicious of her activity than she believed, but the IJ doubts the credibility of those documents. See Balasubramanrim, 143 F.3d at 162 (when document may not represent an accurate account of the persecution . . . suffered . . the Board placed undue reliance on it). However, whatever the school’s suspicions or her beliefs about them, there is no evidence that contradicts what she claims actually happened -- that the school found out, at some point after March 2000, that she was a messenger for the Falun Gong, she was then expelled from school as a result, and subsequently imprisoned. Moreover, it is arbitrary to charge Gao with knowledge of what the school believed or what the comments in her grade reports appear to reference. Adverse credibility findings are afforded substantial deference so long as the findings are supported by specific cogent reasons. See Turcios, 821 F.2d at 1399. The reasons must be substantial and bear a legitimate nexus to the finding. Aguilera-Cota, 914 F.2d at 1381. With respect to the evaluation of the report cards, we conclude that the IJ failed to ground his conclusion on substantial reasoning on the record, or provide a logical nexus between the report 17 cards and Gao’s credibility. Without adequate reasoning supported by substantial evidence on the record, we cannot defer to the IJ’s decision.