Unanimous ruling says federal courts must defer to immigration judges unless evidence clearly contradicts their findings.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled unanimously that federal appeals courts must defer to immigration judges when reviewing asylum determinations, applying the “substantial evidence” standard outlined in federal law.
“The agency’s determination… is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,’” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote.
The ruling affirms the role of immigration courts within the executive branch when evaluating claims that an individual may face persecution if removed from the United States.
The case of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi involved Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana and his family, who entered the U.S. from El Salvador in 2021 and applied for asylum. After an immigration judge denied their request and ordered removal, the decision was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court properly relied on the immigration judge’s factual findings, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review in such cases under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they interpret laws surrounding immigration and asylum.
- For Justice Department and immigration review officials, including immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, as they carry out their responsibilities under the law.
- For wisdom for U.S. immigration officials as they consider claims for asylum.
Sources: Fox News, PJ Media, Newsweek
