Supreme Court rules courts must defer to immigration judges in asylum cases
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal appeals courts must defer to the findings of immigration courts, rather than do their own fact-finding, when reviewing asylum claims, confirming the federal courts’ limited role in immigration disputes even as courts try to find other ways into immigration cases across the country.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the unanimous opinion for the high court in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit used the correct standard of review when evaluating an appeal of a denied asylum petition that had worked its way from immigration courts.
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, along with his wife and child, entered the United States illegally in 2021 and applied for asylum after being placed in removal proceedings. Urias-Orellana claims he was targeted by a hitman in his native El Salvador, and an immigration judge found his claims credible but denied his asylum claim on the basis that he did not establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling, and the federal appeals court also affirmed it after reviewing the case using a substantial-evidence standard.
The substantial-evidence standard, used by the federal appeals court, looked at whether an immigration judge’s finding had evidence to support it, deferring nearly all of the fact-finding and evaluation of the person’s asylum claim to the immigration judge’s proceedings. The standard means an appeals court must only determine if there was “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” to uphold an immigration judge’s determination, rather than start the fact-finding process over again at the appeals stage.
Urias-Orellana’s lawyer argued the appeals court should have done its own fact-finding expedition, rather than rely on the immigration judge’s proceedings, when looking at his asylum claim, arguing that the courts “must exercise their own independent judgment in interpreting and applying Section 1101(a)(42)’s legal standard for ‘persecution.'” The Justice Department argued that the appeals court should defer to the immigration court’s determination and use the lower standard of review.
Jackson wrote that the appeals court was correct to defer to the immigration judge’s judgment when reviewing Urias-Orellana’s appeal claims, as is outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. She …
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal appeals courts must defer to the findings of immigration courts, rather than do their own fact-finding, when reviewing asylum claims, confirming the federal courts’ limited role in immigration disputes even as courts try to find other ways into immigration cases across the country.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the unanimous opinion for the high court in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit used the correct standard of review when evaluating an appeal of a denied asylum petition that had worked its way from immigration courts.
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, along with his wife and child, entered the United States illegally in 2021 and applied for asylum after being placed in removal proceedings. Urias-Orellana claims he was targeted by a hitman in his native El Salvador, and an immigration judge found his claims credible but denied his asylum claim on the basis that he did not establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling, and the federal appeals court also affirmed it after reviewing the case using a substantial-evidence standard.
The substantial-evidence standard, used by the federal appeals court, looked at whether an immigration judge’s finding had evidence to support it, deferring nearly all of the fact-finding and evaluation of the person’s asylum claim to the immigration judge’s proceedings. The standard means an appeals court must only determine if there was “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” to uphold an immigration judge’s determination, rather than start the fact-finding process over again at the appeals stage.
Urias-Orellana’s lawyer argued the appeals court should have done its own fact-finding expedition, rather than rely on the immigration judge’s proceedings, when looking at his asylum claim, arguing that the courts “must exercise their own independent judgment in interpreting and applying Section 1101(a)(42)’s legal standard for ‘persecution.'” The Justice Department argued that the appeals court should defer to the immigration court’s determination and use the lower standard of review.
Jackson wrote that the appeals court was correct to defer to the immigration judge’s judgment when reviewing Urias-Orellana’s appeal claims, as is outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. She …
Supreme Court rules courts must defer to immigration judges in asylum cases
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal appeals courts must defer to the findings of immigration courts, rather than do their own fact-finding, when reviewing asylum claims, confirming the federal courts’ limited role in immigration disputes even as courts try to find other ways into immigration cases across the country.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the unanimous opinion for the high court in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit used the correct standard of review when evaluating an appeal of a denied asylum petition that had worked its way from immigration courts.
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, along with his wife and child, entered the United States illegally in 2021 and applied for asylum after being placed in removal proceedings. Urias-Orellana claims he was targeted by a hitman in his native El Salvador, and an immigration judge found his claims credible but denied his asylum claim on the basis that he did not establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling, and the federal appeals court also affirmed it after reviewing the case using a substantial-evidence standard.
The substantial-evidence standard, used by the federal appeals court, looked at whether an immigration judge’s finding had evidence to support it, deferring nearly all of the fact-finding and evaluation of the person’s asylum claim to the immigration judge’s proceedings. The standard means an appeals court must only determine if there was “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” to uphold an immigration judge’s determination, rather than start the fact-finding process over again at the appeals stage.
Urias-Orellana’s lawyer argued the appeals court should have done its own fact-finding expedition, rather than rely on the immigration judge’s proceedings, when looking at his asylum claim, arguing that the courts “must exercise their own independent judgment in interpreting and applying Section 1101(a)(42)’s legal standard for ‘persecution.'” The Justice Department argued that the appeals court should defer to the immigration court’s determination and use the lower standard of review.
Jackson wrote that the appeals court was correct to defer to the immigration judge’s judgment when reviewing Urias-Orellana’s appeal claims, as is outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. She …
