Jinfeng Tian v. William P. Barr, 932 F.3d 664

Background

Jinfeng Tian, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after claiming persecution in China for her Christian faith and fleeing to the U.S. in 2011.
Tian testified she attended a house church in China, was baptized, was arrested and beaten by police for participating in house church activities, and thereafter was surveilled and forced to report weekly to authorities.
At her removal hearing Tian often had difficulty answering questions through an interpreter; the IJ recorded numerous pauses, apparent hesitations, and translation problems (at least 14 instances noted).
The IJ discredited Tian based on demeanor, delays in answering, perceived inconsistencies (e.g., terminology like “priest,” baptism certificate name), and her admission of lying to obtain a U.S. visa; the IJ denied all relief including CAT.
The BIA affirmed the IJ, finding no clear error in the adverse credibility determination and relying on the IJ’s reasoning about inconsistent testimony and the visa lie.
The Eighth Circuit granted Tian’s petition, holding the IJ/BIA credibility finding lacked ‘‘specific, cogent reasons’’—remanding for a new credibility determination that accounts for translation issues and avoids reliance on trivial doctrinal gaps or cultural misunderstandings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons	Tian argued the IJ relied on trivial doctrinal questions, cultural misunderstandings, and failed to account for translator problems and trauma-related effects	Government argued the IJ properly relied on demeanor, delays, inconsistencies (term "priest," baptism name), and Tian’s admission she lied to obtain a visa	Court held the IJ/BIA’s credibility finding was not supported by cogent reasons; vacated and remanded for new credibility finding that accounts for translation and avoids nit-picking religious knowledge
Whether interpreter/translation problems were considered in credibility assessment	Tian argued repeated translation errors and language barriers undermined the IJ’s demeanor-based findings	Government implicitly argued translator issues were minor and did not explain perceived inconsistencies or non-responsiveness	Court held the IJ failed to account for translation issues; these may produce non-responsive or confused testimony and must be considered
Whether lack of doctrinal/historical religious knowledge undermines claim of sincere religious belief	Tian argued lack of formal theological knowledge is common among persecuted or new converts and is not proof of insincerity	Government highlighted her inability to answer denomination/history questions as evidence of non-credible belief	Court held reliance on obscure religious trivia or perceived ignorance is improper; such questioning can impermissibly ‘‘trip up’’ converts and is not a cogent basis for disbelief
Whether lying on visa application can alone justify disbelief on persecution claim	Tian argued the lie is consistent with a person fleeing persecution and does not necessarily indicate fabrication of persecution claims	Government treated the visa lie as evidence undermining credibility	Court noted the visa lie is equivocal and could support either inference; IJ’s use of it as a primary credibility basis was not cogent without considering context

Key Cases Cited

Diallo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 451 (8th Cir.) (standard of substantial-evidence review for credibility findings)
Sivakaran v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir.) (credibility findings must have specific, cogent reasons)
Jiang v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 992 (7th Cir.) (IJ may not rely on personal beliefs or nit-picking of doctrinal knowledge to discredit religious claimant)
Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir.) (warning against using ignorance of doctrine as evidence of insincere belief)
Tandia v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir.) (credibility determinations cannot rest on trivial or easily explained discrepancies)
Tun v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir.) (translation issues can indicate improper translation and affect demeanor findings)
Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) (linguistic, cultural, and trauma effects caution against normative demeanor-based credibility judgments)
Marouf v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 174 (6th Cir.) (IJs should be sensitive to misunderstandings from language barriers and translators)
Xin Yang v. Holder, 747 F.3d 993 (8th Cir.) (examples where isolated minor translation errors did not defeat credibility but contrasted with the present case)
Cojocari v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 616 (7th Cir.) (recognition that reversing credibility is rare but permissible when IJ’s reasons are not cogent)