Opinion ID: 6324086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: On a petition for review, this court reviews only the BIA’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision had some impact on the BIA’s decision. Fuentes-Pena 3 Case: 21-60092 Document: 00516242312 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/16/2022 No. 21-60092 v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that the BIA relied on the IJ’s findings and conclusions, this court may consider the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. Fuentes-Pena, 917 F.3d at 829. Here, the BIA determined that the IJ’s credibility findings were not clearly erroneous. Thus, this court has the authority to review those portions of the IJ’s decision that impacted the BIA, as well as the BIA’s decision. Id. Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, “meaning that we will accept the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find otherwise.” Id., 917 F.3d at 829 (internal marks and citations omitted). “Under substantial evidence review, this court may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels it.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37; see also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[R]eversal is improper unless the court decides not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.”) (internal marks and citation omitted) (emphasis original). An adverse credibility determination must be supported by substantial evidence. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). We review questions of law de novo. Fuentes-Pena, 917 F.3d at 829.