Chief Judge WALKER dissents in a separate opinion.
SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner-appellant Edwin Galarza (“Galarza”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McKenna, /.) denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court held, inter alia, that Galarza failed to show that the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to strike Hispanic members of the venire at trial violated Galarza’s constitutional rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We find that the trial court correctly determined that his claims as to two potential jurors lacked merit. With respect to Galarza’s three remaining Batson claims, [633]*633we find that the trial court failed to rule whether it credited the race-neutral explanations proffered by the prosecutor before denying the challenges. We therefore vacate the district court’s denial of Galarza’s habeas petition and remand his Batson claims as to these three prospective jurors for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
Galarza, a Hispanic individual, was tried before a jury in a New York State court on various narcotics charges. Jury selection began on February 14, 1989. The first panel of jurors consisted of eighteen individuals, and after voir dire, the prosecutor used her peremptory challenges to strike eleven members of the venire. Defense counsel objected, stating:
For the record, Judge, I know that the District Attorney has been systematically taking off blacks and [HJispanics.... She intimated that the defendant would want [Hjispanics, after seeing her peremptory challenges, it seems clear to me that she is knocking off as many minority members [as she can].... For the record, Adelpho Felix was knocked off, Aurea Valez was knocked off, Edwardo Vasquez was knocked off, David Vargas was knocked off, Catherine Rodriguez was knocked off.... Every [Hjispanic was knocked off peremptorily.
The trial court responded, “Six [H]ispan-ics. Is there anything the People wish to say?” The prosecutor responded that she did not assume that Felix was Hispanic and that “[t]he only person that I think is obviously [Hjispanic in just talking to her, as to whether they speak Spanish[,] was Ms. Valez.” The prosecutor then proffered the following reasons for striking the remaining four prospective jurors that Ga-larza had identified:
My reason for [striking Ms. Valez] off— I thought she had a problem understanding. I think it was communicated when she was up at the bench yesterday during the initial discussions. Mr. Vasquez, also clearly in my impression, had a problem understanding. He seemed somewhat confused yesterday when he came up to the bench and he was somewhat confused today when you asked him point blank questions about certain things, he would say no, then he would go ahead and answer in the affirmative. Again, that was my reason for striking him from the panel.
Mr. Vargas seemed very soft spoken and I, on a personal [level], did not feel comfortable with that juror. Again, my basis was not because he was Hispanic.
Who is left? [My reason for striking] Ms. Rodriguez was that she equivocated on the issue whether she could be fair and impartial. She thought she could be fair. My impression of that was that she really had no position one way or the other. She would try to be fair but she wasn’t sure and that was the basis for striking her from the panel.
Defense counsel objected to the reason proffered by the prosecutor for striking Rodriguez. Counsel argued that the court had commended Rodriguez’s answer about being fair and impartial and that the prosecutor could have struck Rodriguez for cause if she truly believed Rodriguez could not be fair. Co-defendant’s counsel1 then reiterated the challenges as to the other individuals, stating that the prosecutor had used her peremptory challenges against [634]*634everyone in the jury box who had a Hispanic surname:
[W]ith respect to all of the individual names, Felix, Valez, Vasquez, Vargas, Garcia — I am sure I have forgotten one along here, but I think it’s patently clear that these are people with [Hjispanic names. I think that each one of them has been systematically excluded in the first round by the Assistant District Attorney. I submit this is unfair and I object....
The trial court then ruled on the challenges:
In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court essentially described what [the] test is at this juncture and described that the trial judge has certain responsibilities with respect to fairness. I am mindful of those — -let me tell you what my perceptions are and clearly, I will watch this in the future.
Vasquez and Valez did join the line yesterday and came up. When I asked them what would you like to say, they looked at me clearly not knowing why they were there.... I had forgotten that. When the Assistant described that, that is clearly what happened. Vargas could have been excused by either side, [because] Vargas is suing the Police Department because he was falsely arrested apparently by two New York City Police officers.
I am mystified that somebody who is in this line of work, doesn’t know Felix a[sic] Hispanic name.2 Since I am satisfied at least three of them have certain articulable [sic] reasons, I am not going to stop the trial. I am not going to force one or all of these people who were challenged to be seated over prosecution’s objections.
We will all pay attention. We will see what happens next.
Jury selection continued and concluded the following day. Defense counsel raised no further challenges to the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges. On May 24, 1989, the jury found Galarza guilty of numerous narcotics offenses.
Galarza appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, First Department, claiming, inter alia, that he was denied equal protection of the law because the prosecutor exercised her peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The Appellate Division rejected Galarza’s claim, stating that “[t]o the extent that either defendant has preserved a record of the jury selection voir dire, we agree with the trial court that the prosecutor provided racially neutral reasons for the exercise of peremptory challenges as to each strike at issue.” People v. LaFontaine, 190 A.D.2d 609, 610, 594 N.Y.S.2d 986 (N.Y.App.Div., 1st Dept.1993). Chief Judge Kaye of the Court of Appeals denied Galarza’s leave to appeal, People v. Galarza, 81 N.Y.2d 1014, 600 N.Y.S.2d 202, 616 N.E.2d 859 (1993), and denied it again on reconsideration, People v. Galarza, 82 N.Y.2d 718, 602 N.Y.S.2d 815, 622 N.E.2d 316 (1993).3
On December 21,1995, Galarza filed, pro se, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging, inter alia, that his due process and equal protection rights were violated under Batson by the prosecutor’s use of her peremptory challenges to strike Hispanic [635]*635individuals from the venire. The district judge referred the petition to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge recommended that the habeas petition be denied. The magistrate judge determined that Galarza’s counsel had waived Galarza’s Batson challenges by failing to pursue them during voir dire. Assuming arguendo Galarza’s Batson claims were not waived at trial, the magistrate judge found that Galarza had preserved for appellate review challenges to only three prospective jurors — Garcia, Rodriguez, and Vargas — and that the trial court had credited the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations for striking each of those individuals. Galarza filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, denied the writ and dismissed the habeas petition, and granted a certificate of ap-pealability on the issue of whether the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated Batson. Galarza filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s ruling on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus de novo. See English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998). Because a trial court’s determination of whether a juror was struck for a discriminatory reason turns largely on the judge’s observations of the attorneys and prospective jurors and an evaluation of their credibility, “a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). More particularly, when reviewing a Batson challenge in the context of a habeas petition, a trial court’s conclusion that a peremptory challenge was not exercised in a discriminatory manner is entitled to a presumption of correctness, except, inter alia, to the extent that the trial court did not resolve the factual issues involved in the challenge or if the finding is not fairly supported by the record. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) (presumption of correctness not applicable if “the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing”) and (d)(8) (1994) (presumption of correctness not applicable if state court’s “factual determination is not fairly supported by the record”);4 see also Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (“[T]he factual findings of state courts are presumed to be correct, and may be set aside, absent procedural error, only if they are not fairly supported by the record.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Washington v. Schriver, 240 F.3d 101, 110 (2d Cir.2001) (stating that the factual findings of state trial and appellate courts are entitled to a presumption of correctness absent special circumstances, including a determination that the factual finding is not fairly supported by the record).
II. The Batson Standard
The Supreme Court has set forth a three-part test trial courts are to employ when evaluating whether a party exercised a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98, [636]*636106 S.Ct. 1712. First, a trial court must decide whether the party challenging the strike has made a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that a member of the venire was struck because of his or her race. Such a prima facie case may be established, for example, by showing a pattern of strikes against minority prospective jurors. See id. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. This Court has held that “Hispanics are a cognizable group for purposes of the first step of the Batson inquiry.” United States v. Rudas, 905 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir.1990).
If the party making the Batson challenge establishes a prima facie ease, the trial court must require the non-moving party to proffer a race-neutral explanation for striking the potential juror. See Batson at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. This second step does not require the party to give an explanation that is persuasive or even plausible. See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769.
Finally, if the non-moving party proffers a race-neutral explanation, the trial court must determine whether the moving party has carried his or her burden of proving that the strike was motivated by purposeful discrimination. See Batson at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. “[T]he third step of the Batson inquiry requires a trial judge to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all the facts and circumstances.” Jordan v. Lefevre, 206 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). At this third step, the persuasiveness of the race-neutral explanation is relevant. See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769. We have repeatedly emphasized that a trial court may not deny a Batson motion without determining whether it credits the race-neutral explanations for the challenged peremptory strikes. See Jordan, 206 F.3d at 200 (stating that it is “error for the trial court to deny a Batson motion without explicitly adjudicating the credibility of the non-moving or challenging party’s race neutral explanations for its action in peremptorily striking potential jurors”); Barnes v. Anderson, 202 F.3d 150, 156-57 (2d Cir.1999) (stating that “[w]here a court fails to make such a [credibility] finding with respect to the proffered explanation for each challenged strike, the appropriate course usually will be to remand for findings by the court as to the challenged strikes and an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all the facts and circumstances”) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); United States v. Alvarado, 923 F.2d 253, 255-56 (2d Cir.1991) (remanding Batson challenge to trial court where it failed to make findings as to whether it credited prosecutor’s explanations for two of the four strikes challenged by defendant).
III. Waiver
The magistrate judge determined that Galarza’s Batson claims were waived by his counsel’s failure to pursue the challenges during voir dire. We disagree that defense counsel waived Galarza’s Batson challenges as to prospective jurors Felix, Valez, Vasquez, Vargas, and Rodriguez.5 Defense counsel specifically [637]*637identified each of these members of the venire in arguing his Batson prima facie case to the court. After the prosecutor proffered race-neutral explanations for each of these five prospective jurors, one of the defense counsel again objected to the striking of these five individuals.6 Defense counsel thus sufficiently pursued the Batson challenges as to these five potential jurors.
The dissent would find that Galarza is procedurally barred from raising his Bat-son challenges as to these five prospective jurors because he did not renew his objection after the trial court made its incomplete findings as to whether it credited the race-neutral explanations for each of these strikes. See dissent at 642. The dissent’s waiver analysis, however, turns our habeas law on its head.
We have repeatedly stated that in order for federal habeas review to be procedurally barred, a state court must actually have relied on a procedural bar as an independent basis for its disposition of the case, and the state court’s reliance on state law must be unambiguous and clear from the face of the opinion. See, e.g., Fama v. Comm’r of Cow. Servs., 235 F.3d 804, 809 (2d Cir.2000); Jones v. Stinson, 229 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir.2000). We apply a presumption against finding a state procedural bar and “ask not what we think the state court actually might have intended but whether the state court plainly stated its intention.” Jones, 229 F.3d at 118. We have found a state court’s reliance on a state procedural bar to be ambiguous, and thus refused to invoke a procedural bar, where although it appeared that the defendant failed to object sufficiently at trial, the state court rejected defendant’s claims on appeal as “either meritless or unpre-served.” Tankleff, 135 F.3d at 247 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Despite the dissent’s suggestion otherwise, no genuine ambiguity can be read into the Appellate Division’s holding; the court explicitly and only addressed the merits.7 See LaFontaine, 190 A.D.2d at 610, 594 N.Y.S.2d 986. Even assuming arguendo an ambiguous reference to a state procedural bar by the Appellate Division existed, the dissent’s analysis would require us to disregard our established precedent that such an ambiguity is insufficient to preclude our review of a habeas petition.
Beyond disregarding our established precedent, the dissent takes its analysis one dangerous step further. The dissent would invoke a procedural bar where the state court chose not to do so and would have this Court independently examine whether a procedural bar exists under state law. Rather than respecting the grounds of comity and federalism upon which the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine is based, see Jones, 229 F.3d at 117, the dissent would have us review the state court’s decision to reach the merits and would force us to sit as a state court interpreting state procedural [638]*638rules in § 2254 habeas eases before us. This is a step we should not take.
We have no quarrel with the need for contemporaneous objections. Unlike the dissent, however, we decline to create a procedural requirement that a party must repeat his or her Batson challenges three times at trial in order to avoid a procedural bar. Similarly, although we agree with the dissent that a party must raise his or her Batson challenges in a manner that would allow a trial court to remedy the problem at trial, we find Ga-larza’s repeated objections did so. The dissent’s reliance on McCrory v. Henderson, 82 F.3d 1243, 1244-45 (2d Cir.1996), a case where the defendant raised his Batson challenges for the first time over three months after the trial was completed, is misplaced. In contrast, Galarza and his co-counsel objected twice prior to the jury being empaneled. Under these circumstances, we disagree with the dissent that the “blame” for the trial court’s failure to adjudicate whether it credited each of the race-neutral reasons proffered by the prosecutor “lies squarely with Ga-larza.” See dissent at 641. We decline to invoke a procedural bar which the state courts chose not to invoke, and therefore, find that Galarza’s Batson challenges as to Felix, Valez, Vasquez, Vargas, and Rodriguez were sufficiently preserved for collateral review.8
IV. Exhaustion
The magistrate judge further determined that even if defense counsel had not waived Galarza’s Batson challenges at trial, Galarza was procedurally barred from raising his Batson challenges as to Valez, Vasquez, and Felix. The magistrate judge stated that Galarza had only preserved for collateral review his challenges to the striking of Garcia, Rodriguez, and Vargas because only those challenges were raised in Galarza’s direct appeal from his conviction. We disagree.
In order to preserve an issue for collateral review, a habeas petitioner must exhaust all available state court remedies by “fairly presenting]” his claims to the state courts. Daye v. Attorney General of the State of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In order to have fairly presented his federal claims to the state courts the petitioner must have informed the state court of both the factual and the legal premises of the claim he asserts in federal court.” Id.
Galarza’s brief on direct appeal contained the following in the “Questions Presented” section: “Whether appellant was denied equal protection of the law when the trial assistant used her peremptory challenges to strike the first five or six Latino-Americans from the jury ....” (emphasis added). Similarly, the heading to the section of Galarza’s brief concerning the Batson challenges referred to the prosecutor’s striking of five or six Hispanic members of the venire. More importantly, the “Statement of the Facts” section of the brief described the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges against each of the challenged prospective jurors, including Valez, Vasquez, and Felix (the Batson challenges that the magistrate judge determined Galarza was procedurally barred from raising). In his brief, Galarza argued that the prosecutor’s proffered explanations as to each of the other potential [639]*639jurors were insufficient, particularly as to Rodriguez and Vargas.9 Accordingly, we find that Galarza exhausted his Batson claims with respect to prospective jurors Felix, Valez, Vasquez, Vargas, and Rodriguez.
V. The Batson Analysis
Because we find that Galarza did not waive his Batson claims as to Felix, Valez, Vasquez, Vargas, and Rodriguez, we must examine whether the trial court properly analyzed each of these challenges. After defense counsel raised the Batson issues, the trial court required the prosecutor to offer race-neutral explanations for each of the challenged peremptory strikes. Thus, the court sufficiently met its obligations under Batson steps one and two. Cf. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (“Once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot.”); Jordan, 206 F.3d at 200 (stating that “a trial judge may rule on a Batson application even in the absence of a prima facie showing of discrimination”). The only issue in this case is whether the trial court adequately fulfilled its obligations under the third step of the Batson analysis — to adjudicate the credibility of the race-neutral explanations for the challenged peremptory strikes and make an ultimate ruling as to discrimination — for each of these five challenged prospective jurors. See Jordan, 206 F.3d at 200.
The trial court explicitly credited the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation for striking Vasquez and Valez, namely, that they had problems understanding. Because the trial court’s factual findings regarding these two individuals are entitled to a presumption of correctness, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1994), and are supported by the record, we agree with the district court’s determination that Galarza’s Bat-son claims as to Vasquez and Valez are without merit.
The same cannot be said of Galarza’s Batson challenges as to the striking of Rodriguez, Felix, and Vargas. The trial court did not explicitly rule whether it credited the prosecutor’s proffered explanations for striking these individuals. The court made no mention of Rodriguez in its Batson ruling. The trial court’s sole comment with respect to Felix was that it was “mystified that somebody who is in this line of work, doesn’t know Felix a[sic] Hispanic name.” It is unclear whether, by this statement, the court discredited the prosecutor’s assertion that she did not think Felix was Hispanic or whether it credited the prosecutor’s assertion but was surprised that she did not know Felix was a Hispanic surname. The court also did not explicitly rule whether it credited the prosecutor’s assertion that she struck Vargas because he was “soft-spoken” and because she “did not feel comfortable” with him. Instead, the court stated that either side could have struck Vargas for cause.
The fact that the trial court failed to rule on the credibility of the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations as to Rodriguez, Felix and Vargas is further evidenced by the court’s final statement when ruling on the five or six Batson challenges:
Since I am satisfied that at least three of them have certain articulable [sic] reasons, I am not going to stop the trial. I am not going to force one or all of these [640]*640people who were challenged to be seated over prosecution’s objections.
(emphasis added) Two of these three appear to have been Vasquez and Valez, but it is unclear which of Rodriguez, Felix and Vargas was the third. Moreover, the court’s comments not only evidence that the court failed to adjudicate the credibility of the race-neutral explanations offered by the prosecutor for each of the challenged prospective jurors, see Jordan, 206 F.3d at 200; Barnes, 202 F.3d at 156-157, but also strongly suggest that the trial court did not credit the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations for striking two or three of the challenged prospective jurors. In our view, the trial court’s statements also might imply that it was unwilling to make the “ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent,” Jordan, 206 F.3d at 200 (internal quotation marks omitted), because of a stated reluctance “to stop the trial.” Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court failed to discharge its duties under Batson.10
Although the factual findings of state courts are generally presumed to be correct in habeas proceedings in federal court, see supra Section I, this presumption is not applicable to the state court’s determinations as to prospective jurors Rodriguez, Felix, and Vargas. Because the trial court failed to resolve the factual issue of whether it credited the race-neutral explanations for striking each of these three potential jurors, the presumption of correctness does not apply to its Batson rulings as to these individuals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (1994); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (stating that when a state court does not resolve the merits of a factual issue, there is no “determination to which that presumption of correctness could be said to attach”); Campaneria v. Reid, 891 F.2d 1014, 1019 (2d Cir.1989) (stating that “the presumption of correctness does not adhere in a case in which the state court has not actually resolved the merits of a factual dispute”). Similarly, the Appellate Division’s factual determination that the trial court credited the prosecutor’s racially neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes of these three prospective jurors is not “fairly supported by the record,” and, therefore, is also not entitled to a presumption of correctness. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8); see also Williams v. Bartlett, 44 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir.1994) (finding that state appellate court’s factual determination was not entitled to presumption of correctness because it was not supported by the record); Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d 1179, 1185 n. 2 (2d Cir.1981) (agreeing with district court’s “assessment that the state court’s determination is not fairly supported by the record as a whole, and thus is not entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)”).
Because we find that the trial court failed to fulfil its obligations under Batson as to prospective jurors Rodriguez, Felix, and Vargas, we vacate the district court’s denial of Galarza’s habeas petition and remand the matter to the district court. We leave to the district court the determination of whether to expand the record as it may deem appropriate to resolve Galarza’s Batson claims as to these three jurors, or whether to return the matter, through the device of a conditional writ, to the state court for reconsideration. See Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 30 [641]*641(2d Cir.1993) (remanding Batson claim to district court for expansion of the record or to issue a conditional writ). We take judicial notice that the trial judge is still alive, and we therefore disagree with the dissent that “in all probability, this case will have to be retried or Galarza released.” See dissent at 643.
CONCLUSION
We find that with respect to three of Galarza’s Batson challenges, the trial court failed to adjudicate whether it credited the race-neutral reasons proffered by the prosecutor before denying the challenges. We therefore vacate the district court’s denial of Galarza’s habeas petition and remand his Batson claims as to these three prospective jurors to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.