Opinion ID: 66102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lin’s 2003 Hearing Before the IJ

Text: Lin’s testimony before the IJ largely tracked the information that he provided in his supplemental affidavit, with a few notable additions. Lin testified that he was twenty-four when he married Zheng. He also fleshed out his rationale for divorcing his wife, claiming that he did so in order to enable her to attempt a sham marriage with a U.S. citizen to gain entry into the United States. Id. at 176. 8 In addition to his testimony, several exhibits were introduced at the hearing, including the 1998 and 2002 State Department Country Reports for China. Id. at 220-321. Also included was an affidavit from Dr. Aird which outlined instances of forced abortion and sterilization in China and criticized the holdings of the IJ in Zheng’s asylum case. Id. at 324-71. Attached to the affidavit were numerous exhibits cited by Dr. Aird in his affidavit. Id. at 425-682. In addition, Lin entered into evidence an affidavit from Dr. Jacques deLisle, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, stating that the Chinese documents submitted by Lin appeared to be authentic. Id. at 685-91. The IJ did not make a decision at the time of the hearing so that she could review the extensive documentary evidence. Id. at 81. The IJ then denied Lin’s application in a written decision, finding that Lin’s testimony in support of his application was not credible. Id. at 77-101. The IJ noted that Lin testified that Zheng became pregnant in October 1989 after giving birth on 15 September 1989 and then became pregnant again in July 1990 after her IUD was removed in June 1990. While stating that it was “not out of the realm of medical possibility,” the IJ found it unlikely that Zheng could become pregnant six weeks after giving birth and one month after having her IUD removed. Id. at 92. In addition, the IJ noted that Lin testified that family planning officials would arrest or forcibly sterilize 9 women who missed IUD appointments, however, Lin’s wife missed more than three appointments and was only levied a fine. The IJ also noted inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and that of Zheng. Lin testified that he married Zheng when he was twenty-four years old, while she testified that they were twenty-two. In addition, Lin testified that Zheng became pregnant six weeks after giving birth whereas she testified that she conceived after only twenty days. Id. at 92-93. With regard to the corroborating documentation, the IJ noted that such documentation was tainted by reports of widespread fraud and fabrication in China and consequently assigned the documents limited value. In addition, the IJ noted that Zheng’s abortion certificate listed a midterm abortion but that Lin had testified his wife was two months pregnant at the time of the abortion. The IJ rejected Lin’s testimony that the time discrepancy was the result of a clerical error. Id. at 93-95. The IJ then denied Lin’s asylum claim, finding Lin had not provided sufficient evidence that he or his wife suffered past prosecution or that they had a credible fear of future prosecution. Specifically, the IJ found that Lin could not show past persecution because his account of the forced abortion was incredible and the record was otherwise devoid of any other evidence of past persecution. Lin did not show a subjectively genuine fear of future persecution based on the fact that he was not credible. Additionally, he did not show an objectively reasonable 10 fear of future persecution because his fear of being forcibly sterilized was not supported by the documentary evidence. The IJ found that if Lin could not meet the standard for asylum, he could not meet the higher standard for withholding. The IJ also denied relief under CAT, finding that Lin’s testimony was not credible and that Lin could safely relocate internally in China.