When a state court refuses to conduct an evidentiary hearing, will its factual findings be entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and must a petitioner first satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)'s requirement to rebut the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence?

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), requires federal habeas courts to defer to state court factual determinations unless the state court’s decision is “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Section 2254(e)(1) states that “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct” and the habeas petitioner “shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption . . . by clear and convincing evidence.” Federal courts below diverge on the extent to which § 2254(d)(2)’s deference is conditioned on the adequacy of the state court’s fact-finding procedures, including whether the state court conducted an evidentiary hearing on a petitioner’s colorable claims. Federal courts also diverge on whether, in seeking to clear a path to federal relief under § 2254(d)(2), petitioners must first satisfy § 2254(e)(1). In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit merged § 2254(e)(1)’s clear and convincing standard with § 2254(d)(2)’s unreasonableness requirement and deferred to the incomplete record before the state court, without addressing Petitioner’s claims that the state court’s factual findings were based on a defective fact-finding process, including the absence of an evidentiary hearing on his colorable Brady/Giglio claims. 1. When a state court refuses to conduct an evidentiary hearing, at which a petitioner would have an opportunity to test and rebut testimonial and other ii evidence relied upon by the State to defeat his colorable claims, will its factual findings be entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)? 2. In bringing a challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), is a petitioner required to first satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)’s requirement to rebut the presumption of correctness of a state court’s factual findings by clear and convincing evidence?