Court Opinion

ID: 9435458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:05:51.342068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:01.614601
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
When an adjudicator who has seen and heard a witness’ testimony and, based on the adjudicator’s evaluation of the witness’ demeanor, rejects that testimony because he determines the witness was not credible, an appellate tribunal almost never rejects that credibility determination. That is the usual situation where a determination of witness credibility is challenged on appeal.
Here, however, the situation is quite different. The credibility determination that we review was made not by the person who saw and heard Abuhawa testify (the Immigration Judge), but by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its review of the Immigration Judge’s decision. Abuhawa was found not credible not because of his demeanor while testifying, but because of objective evidence that the Board of Immigration Appeals believed undermined his testimony. The validity of that conclusion turns upon an evaluation of that evidence, and that is a function that an appellate tribunal typically performs. That is the situation here. Based upon Ninth Circuit precedent, I have no reason to disagree with this court’s conclusion that the evidence does not justify the Board’s ruling that Abuhawa was not a credible witness.