Opinion ID: 3023506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IUD Implantation

Text: The IJ and BIA questioned the nine-year gap between Feng’s IUD implantation in 1981 and the alleged 1990 sterilization; despite Feng’s claim that the Chinese government tightened its enforcement of the one-birth policy in 1990, the IJ believed that it was 2 Feng submitted her asylum claim before the effective date of the Real ID Act, and therefore is not subject to a new provision that allows IJs to rely on inconsistencies “without regard” to whether they go to the heart of the asylum claim. Real ID Act of 2005, § 101(a)(3), Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 303, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 7 implausible that the Chinese government would sterilize someone who had continuously used an IUD for nine years. As we have explained, a credibility determination based on implausibility must be grounded in the record to avoid speculative or conjectural reasoning. Qun Zheng v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 379, 381 (3d Cir. 2005). In this case, the IJ stated his belief – with which the BIA appeared to agree – that the Chinese government would not have operated in a manner he personally considered illogical. However, the IJ’s own beliefs regarding the expected operations of the Chinese government were mere speculation and were not grounded in record evidence or evidence of country conditions. See Jishiashvili v. Att’y Gen., 402 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the IJ’s contention that there had not been a satisfactory explanation of the nine year gap between Feng’s IUD and sterilization was not a proper basis for the adverse credibility finding. Id.; see also Zhang v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23764, at  (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2005) (unpublished opinion) (rejecting IJ’s speculation regarding workings of foreign government where IJ failed to ground conclusion in record evidence and alien provided “reasonable explanation” of government’s actions).3