Opinion ID: 3023692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony Regarding IUDs

Text: Chen testified that, three months after her first child was born, family planning officials forced her to insert an IUD. According to Chen, the IUD “fell out” and, after this was discovered during a routine medical examination in September 1996, another one was inserted. Chen stated that the second IUD “wasn’t successful” and she discovered that it, too, had fallen out when she learned she was pregnant in April 1997. Chen’s account is clearly set forth in her testimony: [Chen’s Counsel:] Did you only have one IUD insertion? [Chen:] Two times. [Chen’s Counsel:] Why the second time? [Chen:] Because, because the first one fell out. After the, after the periodical checkups they discover[ed] that it fell out and they insert[ed] another one in there. [Chen’s Counsel:] How often were the periodical checkups? [Chen:] Every four — once every four months. [Chen’s Counsel:] And when did they discover that it fell out? [Chen:] In ‘96. [Chen’s Counsel:] So what did they do after they discovered it, it fell out? [Chen:] They examine[d] me and then they reinsert[ed] another IUD. [Chen’s Counsel:] And was that, was that IUD 10 successfully inserted? [Chen:] Eventually it, it wasn’t successful. The IJ apparently misunderstood this testimony, because he then initiated the following exchange: [IJ:] When was the second IUD inserted? [Chen:] In September of ‘96. [IJ:] And when was it discovered that it had fallen out? [Chen:] I discover[ed] that it fell out after I discover[ed] my pregnancy. [IJ:] When would that have been? [Chen:] When I discover[ed] my pregnancy it was in April. [IJ:] Of what year? [Chen:] ‘97. [IJ:] That doesn’t make any sense. You said that they inserted the, the second IUD when they noticed the first one fell out, right? [Chen:] Yes. [IJ:] And you said they inserted the second IUD in September of 1996. [Chen:] Yes, September of ‘96. [IJ:] Okay. And then you said — I asked you when you — when they noticed it fell out to replace it and you said it was April of ‘97. [Chen:] ‘97 was my pregnancy. [IJ:] What — you, you said that — I just asked you when, when they noticed it fell out and you said they noticed it fell out in April of ‘97 when they noticed that you were pregnant. [Chen:] On April of ‘97 I knew — I discovered that I was pregnant. I didn’t know when exact — I didn’t know exactly when the IUD had fallen out. [IJ:] That’s fine, but you have, you have them reinserting the IUD in September of ‘96, before they even noticed it had fallen out in the first place. [Chen:] They did discover it because every four 11 months I had to go for checkups. [IJ:] Yes, but ma’am, see, what you’re telling me doesn’t make sense. You said that the, the IUD fell out in 1996 and it was replaced in September of ‘96, and I asked you when you noticed that it fell out and you said April of ‘97. So they’re — listen, please. They’re reinserting an IUD before you ever realized it had fallen out to begin with. [Chen:] After, after the checkup they had discovered that it had fallen out and they reinsert[ed] it. [IJ:] When was that? [Chen:] In September of ‘96. [IJ:] But that’s not what you just told me. You said you noticed it fell out in April of ‘97. [Chen:] That was the second IUD that had fallen out. I didn’t know when it had fallen out. In his oral decision, the IJ relied heavily on this exchange in finding Chen’s testimony not credible: She stated that the first IUD fell out and it was discovered that it had fallen out in 1996. She stated that the second IUD was inserted in September of 1996. Then [Chen] contradicted her testimony and stated that she noted that the IUD had first fallen out in April 1997. The Court attempted to explain to the respondent that this testimony did not make any sense, inasmuch as, if I follow her testimony, they replaced the IUD before they ever noticed that it had fallen out. Then [Chen] changed her testimony and stated that they noticed that the second IUD had fallen out in April of 1997 when she became pregnant, and she further stated that she discovered that the first IUD fell out during a physical checkup in 1996. Again, it appeared to the Court that the respondent was confused about her testimony. It appeared to the Court that, rather than these events actually happening to [Chen] and rather than [Chen] relating what had happened in the past, that the respondent had memorized this testimony and consequently that calls for the confusion when she was getting her facts backwards. We are unable to discern any place in the transcript where Chen’s testimony was 12 confused or where she “g[ot] her facts backwards.” Rather, the confusion appears to rest with the IJ. Chen never testified that the first IUD was discovered missing when she learned she was pregnant in April 1997. Instead, she clearly stated, consistent with the account in her asylum application, that she was forced to insert two IUDs: the first was discovered missing at a medical examination in September 1996, the second one was then inserted, and that second IUD was discovered missing in April 1997 when Chen learned she was pregnant. We are therefore at a loss to explain the IJ’s conclusion that Chen’s testimony “did not make any sense” and his belief that “they replaced the IUD before they ever noticed that it had fallen out,” and conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination on this point is not supported by substantial evidence. B. Testimony Regarding Abortion and Threat of Sterilization The IJ faulted Chen for “chang[ing] her testimony” when she “initially told the Court that she was forced to undergo a sterilization in 1997,” but then stated that she “was aborted and that the Chinese authorities wanted to sterilize her, but she escaped.” Based on this discrepancy, the IJ concluded that Chen “was clearly confused as to what allegedly happened to her in China,” and that this portion of her testimony was fabricated. Chen’s testimony was as follows: [Chen’s Counsel:] [W]hat have you experienced in China that makes you feel you were persecuted? [Chen:] They, they force me to go — to undergo sterilization. [IJ:] When, when did you undergo sterilization? [Chen:] In 1997. 13 [IJ:] And what do you mean by sterilization? [Chen:] Because I have a daughter and I didn’t wait four to five years [to have another child] and, and I was pregnant again. [IJ:] Yeah? So what happened? [Chen:] And when they discover my pregnancy they force me to, to undergo an abortion. [IJ:] Well there’s a difference between abortion and sterilization. [Chen:] Yes. [IJ:] Did you undergo both? [Chen:] Yes, the abortion happened. [IJ:] And then were you sterilized after the abortion? [Chen:] They notify me for sterilization and I escaped. [IJ:] So why did you tell me that you had — that you [were] forced to undergo a sterilization? [Chen:] Because, because I didn’t wait four to five years and they, they had — they wanted to take me for a sterilization. [IJ:] But I still — you told me a few moments ago that you, you underwent a sterilization. [Chen:] No, I, I didn’t mean to say that. I meant to say I underwent [an] abortion. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by this exchange. The IJ asked Chen directly, “what do you mean by sterilization?” and Chen answered, “when they discover my pregnancy they force me to, to undergo an abortion.” After informing Chen that there was a distinction between sterilization and abortion, Chen clarified that she “didn’t mean to say” sterilization, and her other testimony was fully consistent with the statements in her asylum application that she was forced to undergo an abortion when her second pregnancy was discovered, and then pressured to undergo sterilization, at which point she fled to Fuzhou. Based on this testimony, we do not believe a reasonable 14 adjudicator could conclude that Chen’s testimony was so “clearly confused” that it had to be fabricated. C. Testimony Regarding the Date of the Chen’s First Pregnancy The IJ faulted Chen for “testif[ying] that she first became pregnant in China on September 4, 1994. This is actually the birth date of her firstborn child, her daughter. Then she changed the date to 1993. She was asked as to when in 1993 she first became pregnant, and she stated to the Court that she did not remember the month.” The IJ concluded that it was “extremely difficult to believe that [Chen] would not remember the very first time that she ever became pregnant.” Chen’s testimony on this point was as follows: [Chen’s Counsel:] When did you get pregnant the first time? [Chen:] 1994 on September 4th. [IJ:] That, that’s when you actually became pregnant or that’s when you noticed you were pregnant? [Chen:] That’s the first child. [IJ:] That’s the first child what? [Chen:] Yang Ya Ping [Chen’s daughter]. [IJ:] No, but what, what does, what does that date signify, September 4th, 1994? [Chen:] My daughter’s birthday. [IJ:] Yeah, but when did you become pregnant? [Chen:] In ‘93. [IJ:] When? [Chen:] I don’t, I don’t remember the month. Again, we do not perceive a “change” in testimony; rather, it appears that Chen was merely confused as to what date her counsel wanted to know. Upon clearing up the 15 initial confusion, we do not believe that Chen’s inability to recall, at that moment, the date on which her first child was conceived could lead a reasonable adjudicator to conclude that Chen testified falsely. The date on which Chen’s daughter was conceived is tangential to her testimony regarding the forced abortion and threat of sterilization. As stated above, for petitioners who applied for asylum prior to May 11, 2005, inconsistencies and discrepancies that do not involve “the heart of the asylum claim” cannot support an adverse credibility finding. Berishaj, 378 F.3d at 323. Chen testified that she believed China’s family planning laws required her to wait “four to five years” after having her first child before she could seek permission to have a second child. The date on which her first child was conceived is irrelevant to this calculation and, even if it were not, there is no question that her discovery that she was pregnant in April 1997 was not “four to five years” after the conception or the birth of her daughter in 1994. The only basis on which Chen’s failure to recall the date of conception could conceivably have a negative effect on her credibility is its tendency to suggest that Chen’s daughter was born earlier or that she does not have a daughter at all. We believe the fact that Chen could not remember the exact month in 1993 of her daughter’s conception is, on its face, insufficient to yield such findings. Common sense tells us that while a person can reasonably be expected to remember the birth date of her first child (which Chen knew), or even the date on which she learned she was pregnant (which Chen knew regarding her second pregnancy), the date of conception may not be known with precision 16 and, given variety in gestation periods, can fall within a range of dates. We are thus wholly unpersuaded that it is “extremely difficult to believe” that Chen would not have been able to answer the question of when her daughter was conceived.6 We therefore conclude that this adverse credibility finding is unsupported by substantial evidence. D. Testimony Regarding Chen’s Life in Fuzhou The IJ concluded that Chen’s testimony that she did not leave Fuzhou from 1997 to 2001 to visit her daughter because she feared being sterilized was not credible because Chen “told the Court that the officials threatened to sterilize her if she again violated the birth control laws,” and “there was no testimony that between August of 1997 and March of 2001 [Chen] violated any of those birth control laws, and consequently she would not have had a verifiable fear of being sterilized.” We find this conclusion to be bizarre. Chen testified that she fled to Fuzhou in 1997 to avoid detection of her pregnancy, but when she returned to her village for a brief visit with her daughter she was seized by officials and forced to undergo an abortion. She further testified that those officials threatened to have her sterilized, and she fled to Fuzhou again to avoid that fate. We find nothing implausible in Chen’s testimony that, regardless whether she committed any verifiable violations of the birth control laws during her time in Fuzhou, 6 Indeed, if Chen had wanted to deceive the IJ, she could simply have counted back nine months from the date of her daughter’s birth and given the IJ a date in December 2003. 17 her experiences gave her a well-founded fear of forced sterilization if she returned to her village. Having returned to her village once, only to have allegedly suffered a forced abortion, and having been threatened with forced sterilization, we do not believe a reasonable adjudicator could conclude that Chen should have felt free to return home at any time and trust that the family planning officials would not make good on their threat. As for the notion that Chen had nothing to fear because she had done nothing wrong, this is belied by the fact that the officials allegedly threatened to sterilize her after her second child had already been aborted.