Lishou Wang requested asylum on account of the beating he suffered at the hands of Chinese officials who implanted a contraceptive device in his wife's arm. At first, Want referred to this procedure as a tubal ligation, but subsequently, he repeatedly described it as the implantation of a device (called a "Norplant") into her upper arm. The Immigration Judge denied his application on two ground: 1) a tubal ligation and the implantation of a Norplant are such vastly different procedures that a person could not possibly confuse them; and 2) even if Wang's testimony was credible, he only resisted the implantation of a birth control device, and not a forced abortion or sterilization, and thus, he had not established that he has resisted a coercive population control program. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that "[a]lthough tubal ligation is in fact different from a contraceptive implant, Wang said nothing at the hearing to suggest that he grasped the difference between the two procedures. Consequently the IJ lacked substantial evidence to use Wang’s misunderstanding of the term 'tubal ligation' to discredit his uncontradicted testimony that family-planning officials implanted a contraceptive device into his wife’s arm." In addition, the court noted that "China’s 'coercive population control program' is not limited to only forced abortions and sterilizations; it also forces couples to use birth-control measures such as condoms, pills, and IUDs." Thus, resisting the implantation of a birth control device could qualify as resistance to the coercive population control program.
The full text of Wang v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D10-26/C:15-1261:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1645796:S:0