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

This case asked how much deference (respect for an agency's judgment) federal appeals courts owe the Board of Immigration Appeals when deciding whether undisputed facts amount to "persecution" under asylum law. The Supreme Court said appeals courts must use substantial-evidence review and unanimously affirmed the denial of asylum to a Salvadoran family.

The Court ruled 9-0, with Justice Jackson writing for the Court.

Majority

Jackson

“The courts of appeals must apply substantial-evidence review to the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination of whether undisputed facts constitute "persecution" under immigration law.”

This makes it harder for asylum applicants to overturn the Board of Immigration Appeals' persecution decisions in federal appeals courts. For example, a family challenging an asylum denial now faces a more deferential standard on appeal.

The First Circuit's judgment remains in place, so the family's asylum denial stands. Going forward, lower courts and immigration lawyers will apply this more deferential review standard in similar asylum appeals.

The dispute was over the standard of review in asylum cases. The Court said appeals courts must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals under substantial-evidence review.

Asylum seekers appealing Board decisions are most affected. Federal appeals courts now have less room to reject the agency's view that mistreatment was not severe enough.

The First Circuit's result stays in place, and the family's asylum denial remains effective. Lower courts will use this rule in future cases about whether facts amount to persecution.