Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

Background

A Salvadoran father, his wife, and their minor child came to the United States without authorization and sought asylum after the father testified that a hitman had targeted him for years. He said two half-brothers had been shot, his family received repeated threats, and the family repeatedly moved inside El Salvador before leaving for the United States in 2021. An immigration judge believed the father’s story but found the facts did not prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed and the family appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether courts of appeals must apply a deferential “substantial-evidence” standard when reviewing the agency’s conclusion that a set of undisputed facts does or does not rise to persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Looking to past decisions and the statute’s text and history, the Court held that the statute requires substantial-evidence review for the whole persecution determination, including how the agency applied the legal standard to the facts. The Court explained that earlier precedent and Congress’s amendments support giving deference to the agency’s conclusions about persecution.

Real world impact

The decision means appellate courts will generally uphold immigration judges’ and the BIA’s persecution findings unless the record shows such overwhelming evidence that no reasonable adjudicator could disagree. As a practical matter, some asylum appeals will be harder to win. The Court unanimously affirmed the lower courts’ judgment in this case.