The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Wednesday clarifying how federal courts should review asylum rulings made by immigration judges.
Writing for the Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that federal appeals courts must give substantial deference to immigration judges when evaluating findings related to asylum claims. The ruling reinforces the authority of the executive branch in immigration adjudications and comes amid ongoing enforcement efforts under the administration of Donald Trump. In the decision, Jackson explained that courts reviewing asylum determinations must apply the “substantial evidence” standard. Under this framework, an immigration judge’s findings must be upheld unless the record clearly compels a different conclusion. “The agency’s determination … is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,’” Jackson wrote in the opinion. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, migrants who enter the United States without documentation may apply for asylum if they demonstrate a credible fear of persecution in their home country. Immigration judges, who operate within the Department of Justice, evaluate those claims and determine whether asylum should be granted or whether removal is appropriate.
Decisions by immigration judges can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and subsequently to federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court. The ruling in Urias Orellana v. Bondi involved Douglas Humberto Urias Orellana and his family, citizens of El Salvador who entered the United States in 2021 and sought asylum. After an immigration judge denied their claim and ordered their removal, the decision was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that such factual determinations are entitled to significant judicial deference.
