Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires courts of appeals to apply substantial-evidence review to the agency’s determination whether undisputed facts constitute persecution for asylum purposes. The Court concluded that this deferential review applies to both the underlying factual findings and the application of the statutory persecution standard. The judgment of the First Circuit was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) requires courts of appeals to apply substantial-evidence review to the agency's determination that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
- Whether the application of the statutory persecution standard to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo as a mixed question of law and fact.
Holdings
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), courts of appeals must review the entirety of the agency's persecution determination—including the underlying factual findings and the application of the Immigration and Nationality Act to those findings—for substantial evidence.
- The fact that the persecution determination involves applying a legal standard to facts does not require de novo review; the mixed determination remains subject to substantial-evidence review under § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Key quotations
“Held: The INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under §1101(a)(42)(A).” (at 1-2)
“We hold that §1252(b)(4)(B) requires courts to review the entirety of the agency’s conclusions—both the underlying factual findings and the application of the INA to those findings—for substantial evidence.” (at 7)
“Because the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate standard under §1252(b)(4)(B) when it reviewed the agency persecution determination for substantial evidence, the judgment below is affirmed.” (at 13)
Factual background
Petitioners, natives of El Salvador, entered the United States without authorization in 2021 and were placed in removal proceedings. Douglas Urias-Orellana testified that a hitman had targeted him since 2016, that two of his half-brothers had been shot, and that he and his family received threats and relocated several times within El Salvador. The Immigration Judge credited his testimony but found that the evidence did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and the BIA and First Circuit affirmed.
Procedural history
Petitioners entered the United States without authorization, conceded removability, and sought asylum defensively in removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge denied relief and ordered removal, the BIA affirmed, and the First Circuit affirmed under substantial-evidence review. The Supreme Court affirmed the First Circuit.