The question
Whether the courts of appeals must apply substantial-evidence review to the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(42)(A).
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed that the deferential substantial-evidence standard, not de novo review, governs judicial review of the agency's persecution determination under the asylum statute. Section 1252(b)(4)(B) makes administrative findings conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise, and that standard covers both the underlying factual findings and the application of the INA to those findings. Congress codified the standard set in INS v. Elias-Zacarias when it added section 1252(b)(4)(B), so the entire mixed determination of persecution receives deference.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Jackson, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The opinion held that section 1252(b)(4)(B) prescribes a deferential substantial-evidence standard and that this standard governs the persecution determination, including both the underlying factual findings and the application of the INA to those findings. It reasoned that INS v. Elias-Zacarias set the standard requiring an applicant to show evidence so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution, and that Congress codified that standard when it added section 1252(b)(4)(B). It rejected the argument that de novo review applies because the provision addresses only findings of fact, concluding Congress meant the entire mixed determination to receive deference, and found Wilkinson v. Garland and Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr not to the contrary.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the INA requires substantial-evidence review of the agency's determination whether undisputed facts rise to the level of persecution under section 1101(a)(42)(A).
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1252(b)(4)(B) makes administrative findings of fact conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
Source: syllabus, Held
Congress codified the standard set in INS v. Elias-Zacarias when it added section 1252(b)(4)(B), so the persecution determination receives deference.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court rejected petitioners' argument that de novo review should apply, concluding Congress meant the entire mixed question of law and fact to receive deference.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup