Barnut

dissenting.

The majority believes that the IJ “found that Barnut was not credible and denied asylum on that basis,” Maj. op. at 230, but I don’t think this is the most plausible interpretation of what the IJ did. As I read the IJ’s decision, he found that Bar-nut was not, and was not likely to be, persecuted. The IJ noted, for instance, that Barnut’s “beatings” were not severe— they caused only “superficial damage.” E.R. 93. This finding would have been unnecessary if the IJ were rejecting Bar-nut’s testimony about the beatings altogether; such statements make sense only if the IJ concluded that the mistreatment *231 was insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum.

The IJ did quote from Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720 (9th Cir.1997), a case that ultimately turned on credibility. However, the passage he quoted referred both to credibility and to an asylum applicant’s statutory burden. Id. at 722 (“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of persuading the IJ that his evidence is credible and the IJ is entitled to evaluate assertions of past persecution in light of the strength or weakness of such other evidence as the petitioner may present.”) (emphasis added) (citation and…

MEMORANDUM **

Dorel-Marcel Barnut, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 1 denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. 2 We grant the petition and remand.

Credibility determinations are upheld “if supported by ‘reasonable, substantial and probative evidence’ in the record.” See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir.2004); Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002); Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.2000); de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391 , 393 (9th Cir.1997); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). However, we have added that the determination “ ‘must be supported by a specific, cogent reason.’ ” de Leon-Barrios, 116 F.3d at 393; see also Gui, 280 F.3d at 1225 .

As we read the IJ’s decision, he found that Barnut was not credible and denied asylum on that basis. However, our review of the record convinces us that the IJ’s reasons were not both specific and cogent. Thus, we must reject them and determine that Barnut should be deemed credible. However, we will not…