Chun Sui Yuan v. Loretta E. Lynch, 827 F.3d 648

Yuan, a Chinese citizen, applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on opposition to China’s coercive family‑planning policy after being allegedly assaulted by family‑planning agents in October 2004.
He entered the U.S. illegally in 2005 and conceded removability; he filed for asylum under the REAL ID Act standards.
Yuan’s application included his testimony and letters from his parents and brother describing the attack, hospital treatment, police involvement, and threats from officials.
At a 2013 hearing the IJ found Yuan not credible based on four perceived inconsistencies (medical treatment scope, who transported him to the hospital, whether officials questioned him at work, and confusion about his brother’s whereabouts) and also criticized corroboration.
The Board affirmed the adverse credibility finding (but did not adopt the IJ’s corroboration analysis) and denied relief; Yuan petitioned for review.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the Board’s standalone decision and granted the petition, concluding most alleged inconsistencies were trivial or reasonably explained and remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility based on medical treatment discrepancies	Yuan: differences (omission of “surgery”/“transfusion”) are due to head injury, lay understanding, and translation; not material	Gov: medical record lists surgery/transfusion; omission undermines credibility	Court: Differences are immaterial/plausibly explained; cannot support adverse credibility
Inconsistency about who transported Yuan to hospital	Yuan: statements (police/ambulance/family involvement) are compatible; translations explain wording	Gov: conflicting accounts hurt credibility	Court: No meaningful conflict—records and letters consistent that he required emergency care; immaterial discrepancy
Whether officials questioned Yuan at his workplace	Yuan: testimony clarifies that cursing/altercation occurred at home; workplace visit was limited/ambiguous in statement	Gov: written statement and testimony conflict	Court: Ambiguity easily explained; not a basis for adverse credibility
Confusion over brother’s whereabouts	Yuan: responses were evasive/confusing but reflect misunderstanding of question (present location vs. residence)	Gov: inconsistent testimony shows unreliability	Held: This was the strongest inconsistency but alone was not sufficiently material to sustain an adverse credibility finding under REAL ID; agency failed to explain materiality

Moab v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2007) (scope of appellate review of Board decisions)
Krasilych v. Holder, 583 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2009) (reviewing Board standalone decisions)
Lishou Wang v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2015) (substantial‑evidence review of credibility; consider innocent confusion)
Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2015) (distinguish material vs. trivial inconsistencies under REAL ID)
Antia‑Perea v. Holder, 768 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2014) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2009) (REAL ID requires distinguishing material inconsistencies)
Tarraf v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2007) (consider reasonable explanations for discrepancies)
Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009) (translation/word‑choice issues may be immaterial)
Hongting Liu v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2015) (technical inconsistencies insufficient for adverse credibility)
Kllokoqi v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2005) (greater detail in live testimony vs. written application not fatal to credibility)