## Facts

- Roberto Ferrer Miranda-Alvarado, a Peruvian citizen, joined the Peruvian Civil Guard in 1981 and performed security and community-related duties in Lima.
- Because he spoke both Quechua and Spanish, he was ordered beginning around 1982 to work as an interpreter during interrogations of detainees suspected of affiliation with Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path).
- During interrogations, detainees were often beaten and subjected to electric shocks.
- Miranda translated questions, answers, and commands between officers and Quechua-speaking detainees; he did not personally administer physical abuse.
- He testified he disapproved of the abuse, believed he could not stop it, and feared adverse employment consequences if he refused.
- He served as an interpreter for about seven years, approximately two to three times per month.
- After several years, he attempted to resign, citing family reasons, but later stated his true reason was discomfort with the torture.
- He entered the United States, claimed Shining Path targeted him due to his government service, and applied for asylum and withholding of removal; his spouse sought derivative relief.

## Issues

1. Whether an interpreter who translated during torture-accompanied interrogations of suspected political opponents “assisted . . . in the persecution” of others on account of political opinion, triggering the INA persecutor bar to asylum and withholding.
2. What deference, if any, is owed to the agency’s interpretation of the persecutor bar where the BIA issued a streamlined affirmance and the IJ provided the principal reasoning.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review and upheld the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
- The court held Miranda was statutorily ineligible because his interpreting materially furthered persecution of detainees targeted on account of political opinion.
- The court treated the persecutor-bar question as one for judicial construction, declining to defer to the IJ’s brief and conclusory analysis in the absence of a reasoned BIA interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- The INA persecutor bar applies to a person who “assisted” persecution; direct personal infliction of harm is not required if the person’s conduct materially furthers the persecutory acts.
- Providing interpretive services can constitute assistance in persecution when it enables or facilitates abusive interrogations directed at persons targeted for a protected ground such as political opinion.
- Moral opposition to the abuse, lack of persecutory intent, and institutional or professional pressure to participate do not necessarily negate “assistance” where the conduct objectively advances the persecution.
- The applicant bears the burden to show the persecutor bar does not apply when the record indicates involvement in persecutory activity.
- A streamlined BIA affirmance and an IJ decision lacking thorough reasoning may not warrant deference on statutory interpretation, particularly absent persuasive indicia associated with reasoned agency judgment.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that repeated interpretation during interrogations that routinely involved torture of suspected political opponents was active facilitation that materially furthered persecution, rendering Miranda barred from both asylum and withholding of removal.


Miranda-Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006)