Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15531
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A206-145-471
FU FENG LIN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 25, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2 of 7
Fu Feng Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The immigration judge and the
Board of Immigration Appeals found that Lin’s testimony was too conclusory and
lacked corroboration to establish that he was a refugee who had been persecuted
based on his religious activities. Lin described two incidents in which he was
arrested, abused, and imprisoned by Chinese officials for participating in
unregistered churches. Lin also submitted letters that confirmed his version of
events and official reports stating that local officials persecuted members of
unregistered churches. Because Lin’s testimony was sufficiently detailed and was
corroborated by his documentary evidence to support his application for relief, we
grant Lin’s petition and remand for the agency to consider whether the harms
inflicted on Lin constituted persecution and whether there is a reasonable
possibility that he will singled out for persecution if he returns to China.
We review the decision of the Board to determine whether it “is supported
by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2013). “Under this
standard, reversal requires finding ‘that the record not only supports reversal, but
2
Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 3 of 7
compels it.’” Id. (quoting Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th
Cir. 2003)). We review de novo the legal conclusions of the Board. Mendoza, 327
F.3d at 1287 n.6. Because the Board adopts the findings of the immigration judge,
we review the decision of the immigration judge. Shi, 707 F.3d at 1234.
An alien must prove that he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
The alien’s testimony may be sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof if his
testimony “is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to
demonstrate that [he] is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). To be a refugee,
the alien must have a well-founded fear that he will face persecution upon removal
to his native country on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. Id. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1),
1231(b)(3). If “the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide
evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be
provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably
obtain the evidence.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).
An alien who provides testimony that is credible, consistent with his written
application, and contains details about his persecution need not produce
corroborating evidence to establish that he is a refugee. See Niftaliev v. United
States Attorney General, 504 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2007). In Niftaliev, the alien’s
graphic description of the systematic discrimination and abuse inflicted by
3
Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 4 of 7
Ukrainian officials established that he suffered past persecution on account of his
ethnicity and political activities. Id. at 1217. Niftaliev, who had been ostracized
and penalized for being part Azerbaijani and part Ukrainian, was mistreated by
government officials for protesting the national mistreatment of minorities. Id. at
1213–14. Niftaliev substantiated his claim of persecution by describing, consistent
with his application, protests, beatings, arrests, searches, interrogations, being
imprisoned for 15 days during which he was given little food or water and
threatened with being shot, and continuing to be stalked, threatened, and assaulted
after relocating to Argentina. Id. at 1214, 1217.
The record compels that we reverse the finding that Lin’s testimony was too
conclusory to establish that he was a refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Consistent with his application, Lin testified extensively about twice being
arrested, beaten, detained, and intimidated by Chinese officials because of his
participation in unregistered Christian house churches. Lin testified that, on
November 20, 2012, seven police officers barged into a church service in Hua
Chen’s home, shoved Lin and the other participants to the ground, handcuffed and
searched them, and transported them to a police station. Lin recounted that two
interrogating officers said there was no “ghost or God” and accused him of
participating in an “evil cult,” that he was imprisoned for five days in a detention
facility, and that he feared contacting members of his disbanded church, so he
4
Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 5 of 7
prayed in secret. And Lin recalled that, on March 9, 2013, armed officers stormed
into a service in Lin Ming’s home and handcuffed and arrested the ten
parishioners. At headquarters, two officers threatened Lin, kicked and punched him
to force him to stand during questioning, and denied him food, water, or sleep for
48 hours. For more than a month thereafter, Lin was held in a detention center and
beat severely every two to three days until he was released on bail on April 23,
2012. Afterwards, officers threatened to rearrest Lin and break his hands, arms,
and legs if he returned to the “evil cult,” ordered him to return weekly to account
for his activities and his associates, and surveilled him at home and at work. Lin’s
detailed accounts of being arrested, interrogated, insulted, battered, imprisoned,
and monitored supported his claim that he was punished for and prohibited from
worshipping in an unregistered house church.
The immigration judge also disregarded evidence that substantiated Lin’s
claims of mistreatment. See Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1280 (11th
Cir. 2009). For example, the immigration judge relied on a statement in the 2012
China International Religious Freedom Report that local officials did not interfere
with unregistered house churches, yet the immigration judge overlooked
statements that officials punished unregistered groups by confiscating and
destroying their property, assaulting and injuring participants, and imprisoning
leaders and attendees. The immigration judge also relied on general statements in a
5
Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 6 of 7
State Department report that expressed little concern for religious persecution in
the Fujian Province, but those general statements failed to rebut Lin’s specific
testimony about his personal experiences. See Gaksakuman v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 767
F.3d 1164, 1171 (11th Cir. 2014). And the immigration judge discounted
newspaper reports about the mistreatment of Catholics in the Fujian Province on
the ground that Lin is Protestant, without considering Lin’s testimony, reports from
the China Aid Association, and a report about a Chinese regulation that connects
persecution to a church’s failure to register, not its denomination.
Other documents in the record also corroborate Lin’s accounts of
persecution and bias against unregistered churches. The 2012 and 2013 Country
Reports stated that citizens were beaten, deprived of sleep, and suffered other
harms for their religious practices. Likewise, statements in the 2012 China
International Report established that officials referred to Protestant groups
unaffiliated with state-sanctioned churches as “evil cults.”
The immigration judge discounted letters from Lin’s ministers on the ground
that they were written by interested witnesses, but, in so doing, failed to account
for the ministers’ unique ability to chronicle the raids and the mistreatment of
church members. See Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 2007). Chen
stated that seven officers interrupted his family church service, forced the
participants to the ground where they were handcuffed and searched, and
6
Case: 15-15531 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 7 of 7
transported them for questioning. Chen, like Lin, was told by officers that his
church was a “cult,” was beaten and kicked and denied nourishment and sleep, was
imprisoned for three months, and was released on bail with a warning not to plan
or to attend future “cult church gatherings.” Ming’s letter recounted his meeting
with Lin and Lin’s first visit to Ming’s house church on March 9, 2013, when
officers disrupted the service and handcuffed and arrested the participants.
Thereafter Ming suffered harms similar to Lin. Ming reported being kicked by two
officers to force him to stand during his interrogation, being denied food, water,
and sleep until he was moved to a detention center, being imprisoned for two
months, and being released on bail under instructions to inform officers weekly
about his whereabouts and his companions.
We grant Lin’s petition for review. Lin’s testimony, which the immigration
judge found credible, was sufficiently detailed and corroborated with documentary
evidence to establish that he was a refugee. We remand for the agency to consider
whether the harms inflicted on Lin amounted to persecution and whether there is a
reasonable possibility that he will singled out for persecution if he returns to China.
We GRANT Lin’s petition for review.
7