The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled in favor of the federal government in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, clarifying how federal courts must review immigration decisions involving asylum claims.
Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that federal courts of appeals are required to apply a deferential “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing determinations made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Under this standard, a court may reverse the agency’s decision only if the evidence is so compelling that any reasonable adjudicator would be forced to reach a different conclusion.
The case arose from an asylum application filed by Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their child, who fled El Salvador in 2021 after facing threats of violence. Urias-Orellana claimed the family was being targeted by a sicario, or hitman, who had previously shot two of his half-brothers. He also stated that the attacker’s associates had repeatedly demanded money from him and had assaulted him on one occasion.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), asylum seekers must demonstrate that they have experienced persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution based on protected grounds such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
An immigration judge denied the family’s claim, concluding that their experiences did not meet the legal threshold for persecution. The judge also pointed out that the family had been able to avoid harm by relocating within El Salvador. The BIA upheld that decision in 2023 and issued an order of removal.
After the BIA’s ruling, the family petitioned a federal court of appeals for review, ultimately bringing the issue before the Supreme Court. The justices agreed to hear the case to resolve a disagreement among lower courts regarding the proper standard of review for persecution determinations.
In its decision, the Court emphasized that the INA restricts the role of appellate courts in reviewing factual findings made by immigration authorities. Although the statute does not explicitly use the term “substantial evidence,” Jackson noted that its language effectively imposes that standard. Specifically, the law states that administrative findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise.
The Court also reaffirmed its 1992 decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, which held that applicants seeking to overturn agency rulings must present evidence so strong that no reasonable factfinder could disagree. Jackson wrote that subsequent amendments to the INA reinforced, rather than replaced, that precedent.
As a result, the Court concluded that federal appeals courts must defer to the BIA’s factual determinations unless the record clearly demands a different outcome, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review in asylum cases.
