Overview
- At oral arguments in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the Court considered whether courts of appeals may decide for themselves if an asylum seeker experienced persecution or must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
- The case stems from a Salvadoran family’s 2021 asylum bid based on threats and violence from a hit man, which an immigration judge and then the BIA concluded did not amount to past persecution.
- The First Circuit upheld the BIA by applying a deferential standard to the agency’s persecution determination, and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve differing approaches in the circuits.
- Petitioners argued that applying the legal standard of persecution to undisputed facts is a legal or mixed question suitable for independent judicial review, while the government urged deference, citing precedent including INS v. Elias-Zacarias.
- Questioning suggested a majority may view persecution findings as fact-intensive—Justice Kagan emphasized the factual nature of threat evidence, Justice Sotomayor pressed on the weight of credible death threats, and Justice Kavanaugh probed the limits of deference—with a decision pending.