Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012) (The BIA has the authority to conduct de novo review of questions of law, discretion, and judgment. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). However, [f]acts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(i). The IJ's findings of fact may not be overturned simply because the Board would have weighed the evidence differently or decided the facts differently had it been the factfinder. In re R"S"H, 23 I. & N. Dec. 629, 637 (BIA 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). [T]he BIA does not have authority to engage in factfinding, except to take administrative notice of commonly known facts. Nabulwala v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)).).