Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
The Court holds unanimously that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, courts of appeals must review the immigration agency's determination that a given set of undisputed facts does not rise to the level of "persecution" under the deferential substantial-evidence standard — not de novo. The agency's persecution determination, both its factual findings and its application of the statute to those findings, is conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us2r19_3e04.pdf
Case background
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their minor child are natives of El Salvador who entered the United States without authorization in 2021. After being placed in removal proceedings, they applied for asylum, and Urias-Orellana testified that he was being targeted by a hitman in El Salvador. The Immigration Judge found his testimony credible but concluded that it did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act, denied the asylum applications, and ordered the family’s removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. On petition for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also affirmed, holding that, under the substantial-evidence standard of review, the record did not compel a contrary finding.
Questions Presented
- Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the BIA’s judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Holding
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Section 1252(b)(4)(B) codified the standard of INS v. Elias-Zacarias: the persecution determination — both the underlying factual findings and the application of the INA to those findings — is conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The judgment of the First Circuit is affirmed.
The Court
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, written by Justice Jackson.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Jackson. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.