In the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau
Appellate Division
KAMMEN CHIN,
Appellant,
v.
NGEREBRAK CLAN, DINGILIUS IGNATIO MOREI, ROSE TELLOI SILES, LALII GIBBONS, PIA MOREI, and ALFONSO KUMANGAI, 
Appellees.	
Cite as: 2024 Palau 4
Civil Appeal No. 23-002
Appeal from Civil Action No. 21-125

Decided:	February 1, 2024

Counsel for Appellant 	        Johnson Toribiong
Counsel for Appellees   	        Raynold B. Oilouch
	
BEFORE:	OLDIAIS NGIRAIKELAU, Chief Justice, presiding
FRED M. ISAACS, Associate Justice 
DANIEL R. FOLEY, Associate Justice

Appeal from the Trial Division, the Honorable Kathleen M. Salii, Presiding Justice, presiding.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
[¶ 1]	This appeal involves opposing claims for clan leadership. The issue is whether the trial court erred in finding Appellees, and not Appellant Chin, are senior strong members of Ngerebrak Clan of Medal Village in Oikull, Airai with authority over Ngerebrak Clan lands and affairs. 
[¶ 2]	For the reasons set forth in the trial court’s decision, we AFFIRM.
	Background
[¶ 3]	This appeal stems from a trial court decision granting Appellees’ request for a declaratory judgment that: they are senior strong members of Ngerebrak Clan; Appellee Ignatio Morei holds the male chief title of Dingilius; and Appellant Chin is not a member and lacks authority over Clan affairs. During trial, the court considered Appellant Chin’s and Appellees’ evidence, consisting of documents and testimony. 
[¶ 4]	The trial court granted Appellees’ request, determining Appellees, and not Appellant Chin, are senior strong members of Ngerebrak Clan. Appellant Chin appeals that determination.
	Standard of Review
[¶ 5]	We review matters of law de novo, findings of fact for clear error, and exercises of discretion for abuse of that discretion. Ngirmeriil et al. v. Terekieu Clan, 2023 Palau 21 ¶ 12. “[S]tatus and membership in a clan are questions of fact.” Terekieu Clan v. Ngirmeriil, 2019 Palau 37 ¶ 19. “As an appellate tribunal, our review of factual findings is limited to reversing those findings that are clearly erroneous.” Imeong v. Yobech, 2016 Palau 21 ¶ 17.
[¶ 6]	The trial court is best suited “to hear the evidence and make credibility determinations.” Terekieu Clan, 2019 Palau 37 ¶ 19. “We generally defer to the credibility determinations of the trial court, and we will only overturn them in extraordinary cases.” Palau Cmty. Coll. v. Ibai Lineage, 10 ROP 143, 149 (2003).
	Discussion
[¶ 7]	The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it found Appellees, and not Appellant Chin, are senior strong members of Ngerebrak Clan. Chin must show the trial court clearly erred in finding Chin failed to prove her Clan status. To that end, Chin must present extraordinary circumstances that warrant overturning the court’s determination that Appellees’ witnesses were more credible than Chin’s. 
[¶ 8]	Appellant Chin first misstates the record by arguing the trial court failed to consider certain factors that the court did in fact consider. Chin then contests the trial court’s credibility determinations and urges the Court to reweigh evidence. To support this request, Chin asserts testimony from her witnesses was “most poignant” because it “came from the heart as part of their family history.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 16. Absent extraordinary circumstances, however, determining credibility and weighing evidence is the trial court’s domain. The court accepted Appellees’ evidence as more credible “based on the corroborating evidence” and noted that Chin’s origin story “conflicted with and contradicted portions of [Chin’s] own testimony.” Ngerebrak Clan et al., Civil Action No. 21-125, at 5-6. 
[¶ 9]	This appeal fails to present any unreasonable factual findings or extraordinary circumstances that warrant overturning the court’s credibility determinations. Therefore, the court did not err in declaring Appellees, and not Appellant, as senior strong members of Ngerebrak Clan. 
	Conclusion
[¶ 10]	For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Trial Division’s decision.

SO ORDERED, this 1st day of February 2024.