A. Redemptive behavior by the applicant, while not dispositive, envelopes the applicant’s conduct as a whole and should bolster the court’s opinion.

Serrano-Serra’s calling the police and fleeing the city should bolster this courts opinion of his behavior as a whole and credibility. This court, and others, have traditionally held that redemptive acts are not decisive in determining whether an applicant may be granted asylum. §1158 does not address redemptive behavior, and is, therefore, not revealing either way. Redemptive acts, while not dispositive, should still serve to bolster a court’s ultimate opinion of whether an applicant’s behavior, when being assessed as a whole, merits the type of conduct that should be barred. Lin, 584 F. 3d 75; …show more content…
Like Xie letting the woman out of the car, defying his employer, or Lin helping a pregnant woman escape the hospital, risking being caught and punished, Serrano-Serra calling the police, knowing the gang would almost certainly kill him if they knew what he had done, is an undoubted act of redemption. After this, he fled the country and tried to hide from the gang and now seeks refuge in this country. Not only is such behavior redeeming, it exemplifies the true mental state and desires of a young man who was horrified at what he had witnessed, and never intended for anyone to be harmed. By taking the action of calling the police, he acted in a way that directly opposed the intended consequences of the two gang members who hurt the …show more content…
The sources relied upon by Congress when creating the persecutor bar are all comprised of a similar requirement of personal culpability for the actor to be disqualified for asylum. The Supreme Court has recognized that “American criminal law has long considered a defendant’s intention—and therefore his moral guilt—to be critical to the degree of his criminal culpability,” and any law that punishes such a person is “unconstitutionally excessive in the absence of intentional wrongdoing.” Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 800 (1982). The reason for this focus on barring criminal culpability within the statute is because the language was adopted from the U.N. Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees which was rooted in principles developed by the military tribunals created to try war crimes. Since these tribunals recognized a duress defense, this court should, today, interpret Congress’s language to include a similar exception