Kabba v. Mukasey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding BIA is required to apply a “deferential standard” and review the IJ’s credibility determinations “for clear error, and only clear error”
• holding question whether BIA applied correct standard of review is legal in nature, and therefore subject to de novo review, and concluding BIA erred because it reviewed an IJ’s credibility determinations de novo
• recognizing the BIA reviews an IJ’s credibility findings for clear error and “where there are two permissible views of the evidence, . . . the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• faulting the BIA for “selectively examin[ing] some evidence while ignoring other evidence presented to it”
• reviewing petitioner’s argument that the BIA “committed legal error by analyzing the IJ’s credibility determination de novo, rather than under the required clearly erroneous standard” without requiring a petition for rehearing or request for reconsideration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).