Opinion ID: 3012112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Disciplinary Determination

Text: The IJ’s heavy reliance on the report cards as contradictory evidence of Gao’s claims is especially troubling because the IJ failed to discuss in any way the other documentary evidence offered by Gao -- the Disciplinary Determination issued by the school. The document is a one paragraph explanation for the school’s action. It includes a seal of the school, and notes that copies would be sent to Gao’s parents and [r]ecords of the school policy and administration department. It is titled: Discipline Determination Regarding Student GAO Chen Yun’s Violation. It is dated June 12, 2000. The text reads: Inspected junior high second grade (4) student GAO Chen Yun, female, born on 1983 March 17, this student during her school period, did not obey the school moral education, joined the so called social exercise movement by her own will; has been a messenger for the illegal group: Fa Lun Gong Group. She was absent from class for 43 times, the policy and administration department had educated her over and over, she still did not regret it and caused this serious problem, this student was disciplined for a major demerit in March 2000, right now she keeps on joining the Fa Lun Gong activities as their messenger, she was questioned by the local justice department in June and has been absent from class for 56 times since then, she has set up a very bad influence. Based on regulation 11 section 4 (continuous high school discipline violation, law violation regulation) and the regulations of the public security authority, after the study and the decision of the school administration, GAO Chen Yun is expelled from school, this case is reported to the public security bureau and be processed based on the regulations. [A.R. 388]. 18 The government in its brief attempts to show that the primary reason for Gao’s expulsion from school was absenteeism. The Disciplinary Determination explicitly contradicts this, and, if credible, makes clear that the primary reason for her expulsion was not school truancy, but rather her link to the Falun Gong. As the Disciplinary Determination suggests, the school took this link so seriously that they not only expelled her, but also noted in the letter they were referring the matter to the local public security bureau, which Gao claims led to her working as a prisoner in the countryside. The IJ completely ignored this highly relevant and potentially corroborative evidence, evidence beyond that which a typical refugee must present to establish a claim for asylum. See Senathirajah v. INS, 157 F.3d 210, 216 (3d Cir. 1998) (corroboration not required to establish credibility). Determining the document’s credibility is beyond the scope of our review in this instance, and is a task that must be accomplished by the fact finder. See Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (On remand, BIA should consider credibility of letters they did not consider in initial evaluation); Sotto v. INS, 748 F.2d 832, 837 (3d Cir. 1984) (If the administrative record fails to reveal that such evidence has been fairly considered, the proper course is to remand the case to the INS so that the Service may evaluate such evidence and consider its effect on the application as a whole.). Because of the high probative value of this evidence, which supports Gao’s consistent testimony, reconciles ambiguities and conflicts with the suspect report cards, we conclude that it was reversible error for the IJ to fail to evaluate and discuss it. D. Additional Adverse Credibility Determinations The IJ, having made a credibility determination based upon the report card evidence, pointed out three other elements to Gao’s story he found implausible. The IJ did not attempt to justify the foundation for this implausibility, but merely added it to his suspicions about Gao’s story. The IJ did not believe the story of her escape; rather he opined that he did not believe that security would be so lax and lenient as to allow her to escape. The IJ also found Gao 19 unresponsive when asked about her escape. The record, however, indicates that far from being unresponsive, Gao gave specific and detailed answers to the question, even working through the translator. She did not avoid answering the question as much as she attempted to explain her answer, as we report in the margin. 7 Having _________________________________________________________________ 7. The exchange between Mr. Bloom of the INS and Gao is instructive: Q. And ma’am, why did they take you out of the prison that you were in, or out of the rom [sic] that you were in? A. Because they said since you Falungong members like to exercise, so I’m going to let you do more stuff, so they took us to a park. It’s a big park and it’s very dirty. Q. And ma’am, did they have you in any handcuffs, or any kind of restraint at that time? A. Yes. When they took us out to, to the park we were handcuffed, and however, as soon as we start working then we, then those stuffs are took off. Q. And ma’am, you indicated then at lunch time you just simply ran away, correct? A. (In English) Yes. A. Yes. Q. Didn’t anyone chase you? A. Because all of the people are, are Falungong’s members, so they’re really happy that I, that I could escaped. Q. Okay. My question is, didn’t any of the guards or the officers, didn’t they chase you? A. They didn’t, they didn’t expect that a young child like me would run away, and because at that, prior to that I was sitting with a big sister and we were talking under the tree. Q. Okay. But my question, ma’am, again is, did the officer or the guards ever chase you? A. Okay. We were working, we were working there counting the people, and but we were, we were eating the lunch, they didn’t expect that, you know, and small child like me would run away. Q. Okay. Ma’am, you said that once already, but my question again is, did the officers or the guards ever chase you? Did they chase you? 20 already made an adverse credibility determination based on his suspicion of the report cards, the IJ does not provide a foundation for his disbelief of Gao’s testimony on these points, other than his own unsupported opinion as to how an authoritarian government operates, including his troubling remarks that he found implausible . . . the preoccupation of Chinese authorities for someone who is a mere adjunct to the activity that the government is trying to stop or prevent, but that is not at all involved in it herself.8 But the State Department Report contradicts this unsupported assumption by the IJ. It seems that the _________________________________________________________________ A. No, they did not know, so. Q. Well, how is it that they didn’t know that you were escaping? A. Because lots of trees in the, in the park. It’s not like here, so it’s, it’s not difficult to, to run away. [A.R. 128-29]. 8. The IJ also indicates his lack of credibility is based on a meager description given by Gao as to what Falun Gong is. She said it is a theory of ‘truth, kindness and beauty,’ and was unable to say anything more about what Falungong actually teaches.[A.R. 51]. The IJ did not attempt to compare this to an actual description of the Falun Gong. A book review, included in the record and submitted by the INS, includes this passage: Falun Gong combines elements of Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern philosophies with a strikingly Western sensibility that requires believers to do little more than simply lead conscientious lives and turn the other cheek. By ‘cultivating’ truth, compassion and forbearance practitioners are told they may increase their ‘cultivation energy’ (a measure of enlightenment) . . . . Though ‘China Falun Gong’ describes a set of exercises associated with the faith, Li makes clear that there are few requirements as to how often these must be performed, if at all. [A.R. 334]. Mark Wallace, Falun Gong: What the religious leader who made China tremble has to say for himself, Salon.com, September 8, 1999 at http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/09/08/falun/. Gao’s comments do not appear to be far from the mark. The IJ did not seem to consider that Gao’s meager description might actually reflect the reality of the Falun Gong belief system, and is certainly consistent with this record evidence of its requirements. 21 Chinese government is actively pursuing all means by which to eradicate the Falun Gong movement, which apparently cannot function without messengers, even if they are not Falun Gong practitioners. At least on the record it does not appear that the IJ’s conclusions are supported.