## Facts

- Yong Ting Yan, a citizen of China, sought asylum, restriction on removal, and CAT protection based on alleged persecution for practicing Christianity in an unregistered house church.
- Yan testified that he attended house church meetings in China, was baptized, and that authorities raided the church, arrested him, jailed him, and beat him because of his religious activities.
- After arriving in the United States, Yan testified he attended Chinese-language churches in Los Angeles; another witness corroborated his church attendance.
- During the removal hearing, the government questioned Yan about Christianity, including basic questions about the Bible and holidays; Yan answered most questions with minor errors but could not state the date of Easter.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Yan not credible, citing doubts about his “commitment to Christianity” and characterizing his religious knowledge as rudimentary.
- The IJ also concluded Yan failed to show he was or would be targeted by Chinese authorities for religious activity, relying in part on State Department country materials.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed, making the IJ’s decision the final agency determination.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding grounded largely in Yan’s perceived lack of religious knowledge and doubts about his sincerity as a Christian.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusion that Yan was unlikely to be targeted by Chinese authorities for house-church activity, particularly given the record and country-conditions evidence.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit granted the petition for review, reversed the BIA’s order, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that neither of the IJ’s two primary reasons for disbelieving Yan’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence.
- The court rejected the IJ’s reliance on Yan’s inability to identify the date of Easter and similar liturgical details as a basis to find him not credible.
- The court concluded the IJ overstated what the State Department materials showed and improperly treated generalized country conditions as rendering Yan’s specific account “incredible.”

## Legal Principles

- When the BIA summarily affirms, the reviewing court examines the IJ’s decision as the operative agency determination.
- Agency factual and credibility findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
- Adverse credibility determinations must rest on record-based reasons rather than subjective assumptions about how a sincere believer should speak or what a believer should know.
- Country-conditions reports may inform context but generally cannot, without a sound record basis, negate specific, plausible testimony by treating the reports as categorically excluding the claimed events.
- Asylum requires proof of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground; restriction on removal requires a higher showing (clear probability), and CAT requires proof that torture is more likely than not upon return.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit set aside the agency’s denial of relief because the IJ’s credibility and country-conditions reasoning lacked substantial evidentiary support, and it remanded for a new evaluation of Yan’s asylum, restriction on removal, and CAT claims under proper fact-finding standards.


Yan v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2006)