Opinion ID: 3012112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Oral Testimony and Application

Text: The IJ’s decision cannot be supported by internal inconsistencies within Gao’s story as developed by her testimony. Indeed, her application and her testimony present a consistent statement that Gao was a messenger for the Falun Gong. Gao’s asylum application stated that she was recruited as a messenger for the Falun Gong. See supra note 1. Her oral testimony, recounted in the margin, also established that her association with the Falun Gong was as a messenger.5 _________________________________________________________________ 5. Her testimony during the hearing includes the following statements: I was practicing Falungong. I was a messenger. [A.R. 105]. I was not practicing Falungong, I was a messenger. I work with my aunt. [A.R. 112]. Q: Do you yourself practice Falungong? A: Seldom. I, basically I was watching people practicing. [A.R. 114]. 11 The IJ, however, made reference to what he believed was a change in her story once she was under cross- examination, the effect of which was to reduce her association with the Falun Gong from practicing to messenger. He states: It turns out in her testimony although she originally stated that what she was doing in China before she came to the United States was that she was ‘practicing Falungong,’ she later said during the same direct testimony, that in response to the question‘when did you start practicing’ that she did not actually practice, that she was only a messenger. [A.R. 43]. The IJ does not cite the two contradictory statements. In searching the record, we find only one quotation from Gao that indicates she practiced Falun Gong, and contrary to the IJ’s characterization, this clarification does not come later in her testimony. She stated, I was practicing Falun Gong. I was a messenger. [A.R. 105]. This statement was followed up with a clarification in the very same breath that her role was that of messenger. Other than this one instance, the IJ recited no significant inconsistencies between her oral testimony and her application. Therefore, we find no substantial evidence in the record undermining Gao’s credibility with respect to her statements.