Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al., Petitioners v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

The Supreme Court said federal appeals courts must use substantial-evidence review (a deferential standard) when checking the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision on whether undisputed facts amount to persecution. In a 9-0 opinion by Justice Jackson, the Court affirmed the denial of asylum to a Salvadoran family.

The Court ruled 9-0, with Justice Jackson writing for the Court, and affirmed the First Circuit.

Majority

Jackson

This makes it harder for asylum applicants to overturn the immigration board's persecution decision in federal appeals courts. For example, a family claiming repeated threats or mistreatment now faces a more deferential review of the board's conclusion.

Lower federal courts must apply this deferential review in similar asylum cases, and the Board of Immigration Appeals can rely on this decision in future appeals. For the family in this case, the asylum denial remains in place unless they pursue any other available immigration options.

The dispute was over how closely federal appeals courts should review the immigration board's decision on whether proven facts count as persecution. The Court said judges must use substantial-evidence review.

It gives the Board of Immigration Appeals more room to make the persecution call without being second-guessed by appeals courts. That can make reversals of asylum denials less common.

Lower courts and immigration agencies must follow this rule in future cases. The asylum denial for this Salvadoran family stays in place under the Supreme Court's decision.