Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

The Court unanimously decided that federal appeals courts must use substantial-evidence review when reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision that undisputed facts do not amount to persecution. It affirmed the denial of asylum to a Salvadoran family.

Justice Jackson wrote the 9–0 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

Justice Jackson wrote for a unanimous 9-0 Court affirming the denial of asylum.

Majority

Jackson

Roberts

Thomas

Alito

Sotomayor

Kagan

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Barrett

“Courts of appeals must apply substantial-evidence review to the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination of whether undisputed facts constitute persecution.”

The decision limits how closely appeals courts reexamine the immigration board's assessment of whether mistreatment qualifies as persecution. For example, an asylum applicant challenging that assessment in a federal appeals court now faces substantial-evidence review.

The asylum denial for the Salvadoran family remains in place. Lower federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals will apply the Court's review standard in future asylum cases.

The Court said federal appeals courts must apply substantial-evidence review to the immigration board's persecution determinations based on undisputed facts.

Asylum applicants and the government are affected when applicants challenge an immigration board finding that mistreatment was not persecution.

The family's asylum denial remains in place. Lower courts and immigration officials must use the Court's stated review standard in later cases.