Cardonarivas

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Carlos Enrique Cardona-Rivas (“Cardona”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA determined that Cardona was a “persecutor of others” on the basis of their political opinion, and was therefore statutorily barred from receiving asylum or withholding of removal relief. Thus, the BIA has yet to address the merits of Cardona’s requests for asylum or withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), and we grant Cardona’s petition. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

Cardona argues that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) erred in crediting the hearing testimony of an asylum officer—who referred to notes taken from Cardona’s initial asylum interview, which was conducted through the aid of a translator—over his own hearing testimony. The IJ concluded:

The BIA found that “the credible testimony and evidence provided by the asylum officer” supported a finding that [Cardona] had assisted and participated in…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

At the hearing, the Asylum Officer testified, with the assistance of her contemporaneous interview notes, that CardonaRivas admitted in his original asylum interview to having committed violent acts against civilians perceived to be aiding guerilla forces. Specifically, the asylum officer reported that Cardona-Rivas stated that “we would punish [the villagers] by beating the parents, children or cutting them up. We received these orders from our superiors [and] we had to do it or be punished ourselves.”

The majority criticizes the IJ and BIA for not making explicit adverse credibility findings. I disagree. The IJ expressly stated that he credited the testimony of the Asylum Officer over that of CardonaRivas. He justified this determination by stating that the Asylum Officer’s testimony was coherent and plausible, and that her credibility was bolstered by her forthright admissions of incomplete recollection. Her notes, made contemporaneously, were specific and detailed. In contrast, the IJ found Cardona-Rivas’ testimony to be “vague and difficult to follow.” The BIA echoed these findings, and also found Car-dona-Rivas’ answers to questions…