Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 15

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

“ ‘an opinion or estimate so formed.’ ”  Id., at 16–17 (quoting
Webster’s  Third  New  International  Dictionary,  at  1223).
The  Government’s  argument  is  subtle,  to  say  the  least,
given  that  none  of  the  definitions  it  cites  expressly  refer-
ences discretion.  Evidently, the nature of the decisionmak-
ing process does the work: If the process occurs as the defi-
nitions describe, then the decision it yields is discretionary
and counts as a judgment.  And the Government says that 
the factual findings in this case do not fit that description. 
We  do  not  see  how  the  Government’s  cited  definitions 
narrow  the  field  in  the  way  that  the  Government  claims.
Rather than delineating a special category of discretionary
determinations,  they  simply  describe  the  decisionmaking 
process.  That process might involve a matter that the Gov-
ernment treats as “subjective” or one that it deems “objec-
tive.”  Either counts as a judgment, even under the defini-
tions that the Government offers. 

Take the credibility determination at issue in this case. 
It is easily described as an “opinion or evaluation” formed 
“by discerning and comparing” the evidence presented.  The 
Immigration  Judge  weighed  Patel’s  testimony,  reviewed
documents, and considered Patel’s history to conclude that
he was an evasive and untrustworthy witness.  Using the
word “judgment” to describe that kind of credibility deter-
mination is perfectly natural—in fact, we have used it this
way ourselves.  See, e.g., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 
v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U. S. 318, 327 (2015) (discussing “ ‘cred-
ibility judgments’ ” about a witness).  It is just as natural in 
other factfinding contexts, like the Immigration Judge’s de-
termination that Patel lied on his driver’s license applica-
tion.  Finding that fact involved the same exercise of evalu-
ating conflicting evidence to make a judgment about what
happened.

So to succeed, the Government must do more than point 
to the word “judgment.”  It must show that in context, the