Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the protection of [a lesser standard of review] but are subject to de novo review.” In re Kretzinger, 103 F.3d 943, 946 (10th Cir.1996) (quotation omitted); see also Brue v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir.2006) (discussing vs., 470 F.3d 509, 513-14 (2d Cir.2006) (finding legal error when “[a]lthough the BIA cited the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, it failed to apply this deferential standard of review when evaluating the IJ’s credibility finding”). B Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)©, the BIA cannot “engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an [IJ].” Instead, the BIA reviews those facts found by the IJ — including credibility determinations — only to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Id.; see also RamirezPeyro, 477 F.3d at 641 (<HOLDING>). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion (B) holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous (C) holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record (D) recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous (E) holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous
Output (English): holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record