CA10: IJ is an idiot for finding that Chinese man wasn’t Christian enough

Thanks to DoTD, we learn now see that IJs are in some sort of bizarre race to see who can be the absolute worst fact-finder.  The petitioner is pro se.  He is a Chinese Christian.  But, according to the IJ he wasn’t Christian enough. 

The case is:  Yong Tin Yan v. Gonzales, 05-9564 (10th Cir., Mar. 2, 2006).

Court notes that, “ On cross-examination in this case, counsel for the DHS administered a sort of pmini-catechism to Mr. Yan.”  But, this isn’t good enough.  “To the extent Mr. Yan was unable to answer the questions posed to him, some of which were phrased as "trick" questions, the IJ concluded that Mr. Yan was not really a Christian.  To the extent he was able to answer the questions, the IJ concluded that Mr. Yan had been coached.”  Now, wait a minute.  Are not all Christians “coached” as to their knowledge of the bible?  It isn’t as if they witnessed any of the events in the bible themselves?  Even if you have a personal relationship with god or Jesus, you didn't personally witness the crucifiction, right?

Oh, and while we are on the subject, are not all witnesses coached?  Experts are.  Defendants are.  Cops are.  Heck, it probably is malpractice not to coach a friendly witness.

The opinion contains a selection of the transcript where the IJ (or government counsel) tries to trip up the petitioner with his knowledge of Christianity, which would be absolutely hilariously, but for the fact that someone’s life and freedom are on the line here!  Jesus Christ – this IJ is a tool! (Okay, a little joke there!)  The 10th goes on to point out that the petitioner’s understanding of the bible is accurate (though muddled by the interpreter), and notes that a question about the Book of Mormon isn’t really relevant, which explains why the petitioner never heard of it!  (Oh, so, it seems that the IJ thinks that you are not a good Christian if you don’t know the Book of Mormon.  Though the petitioner does seem to know quite a bit about the Torah.) The 10th goes on to show how the IJ seems to prefer one sect of Christianity over the others.  (To be honest, I don’t know much about Christianity, or any religion, myself, so if I make some mistakes, I am sorry.)

The IJ also condemned the petitioner for not knowing the date of Easter, but the 10th points out that “ The exact date differs from year to year, and actually requires a set of extraordinarily complex calculations.  As the U.S. Naval observatory explains,  Easter can occur at various times each year, between March 22 and  April 25.”

The rest of the opinion rightfully trashes the IJ’s findings that everything else in the petitioner’s testimony wasn’t credible.  But these more relate to simple credibility findings (about when the petitioner went to church and such) then his actual religion.

Okay, obviously this opinion makes me very mad.  For all the grousing we do about how Christians are oppressed in other countries, this IJ seems to want to impose his view of Christianity on a Chinese man, and send him back to China for not being Christian enough!  But, there is more.

Doesn’t it seem like this IJ, in asking various questions about the bible – and certain versions and interpretations of it – is establishing a religion in violation of the 1st amendment.  Indeed, by finding that there was something wrong about not knowing about the book of Mormon, the IJ seems to think that a “true” Christian would know about this book.