Opinion ID: 164747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This case hangs almost exclusively on the credibility of petitioner’s testimony, much of which the IJ did not believe. When the BIA summarily affirms the IJ, we review the judge’s decision as if it were the BIA’s. See Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003). We do not weigh the evidence, nor do we evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Yuk v. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 1222, 1233 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Woldemeskel v. INS , 257 F.3d 1185, 1189 (10th Cir. 2001)). In addition, the BIA’s factual findings “are conclusive unless the record demonstrates that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Tsevegmid , 336 F.3d at 1235 (quotation omitted). The IJ must give “specific, cogent reasons” for a determination that petitioner lacks credibility. Sviridov v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 722, 727 (10th Cir. 2004). -3-