The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, reinforcing how federal courts must review asylum rulings made by immigration authorities. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that federal courts of appeals must apply a deferential standard when reviewing decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding whether asylum seekers have demonstrated the level of persecution required to qualify for asylum protections. The ruling clarifies how appellate courts should approach these cases and resolves a disagreement among lower federal courts about the correct standard of review. Rather than re-evaluating the facts independently, courts must give significant deference to the findings made by immigration judges and the BIA. This standard, commonly referred to as the “substantial evidence” standard, limits when federal courts can overturn immigration authorities’ factual conclusions. The Court’s decision reinforces the idea that immigration agencies, not appellate courts, are primarily responsible for determining whether an applicant has shown the necessary evidence of persecution. Only when the evidence strongly compels a different conclusion may a federal court intervene and reverse such determinations.

The case itself arose from an asylum application submitted by Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their child. The family fled El Salvador in 2021 after experiencing threats and violence that they argued placed them in serious danger. According to their account, a hitman—commonly referred to as a “sicario”—had previously shot and killed two of Urias-Orellana’s half-brothers. The applicant claimed that associates of the same individual had targeted him as well. He reported that these individuals demanded money from him and physically assaulted him during one encounter. Fearing that the threats would escalate into further violence, the family decided to leave El Salvador and seek protection in the United States through the asylum process. Their case followed the standard procedure for asylum claims under U.S. immigration law. When individuals request asylum, immigration judges must determine whether they have demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on specific protected grounds. Those grounds include race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Establishing persecution under these criteria is central to determining whether asylum protection should be granted.

In reviewing Urias-Orellana’s case, an immigration judge concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold required to demonstrate persecution under the INA. One factor that influenced the decision was the finding that the family had previously avoided harm by relocating within El Salvador. In asylum law, the possibility of internal relocation within a country can sometimes weigh against claims that individuals face unavoidable persecution. If authorities determine that an applicant could reasonably live safely in another part of their home country, the claim for asylum may be weakened. After the immigration judge denied the asylum request, the family appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying U.S. immigration laws. It reviews decisions made by immigration judges to determine whether they were legally correct. In 2023, the Board upheld the immigration judge’s conclusion that the family had not demonstrated the level of persecution required for asylum protection. As a result, the BIA affirmed the order requiring the family’s removal from the United States.

Following the BIA’s decision, Urias-Orellana and his family exercised their right under the Immigration and Nationality Act to seek judicial review of their asylum claim in a federal court of appeals. When asylum seekers believe the Board of Immigration Appeals has incorrectly decided their case, they may ask a federal appellate court to review the decision. However, the question facing the Supreme Court in this case was not simply whether the family qualified for asylum. Instead, the central legal issue concerned the standard that federal appellate courts should apply when reviewing the BIA’s determination about persecution. Different federal courts of appeals had interpreted the law differently. Some courts appeared to apply a less deferential approach, examining the evidence more independently when reviewing persecution findings. Others adhered more strictly to a deferential standard that required courts to uphold the BIA’s factual conclusions unless the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the opposite conclusion. Because of this disagreement among appellate courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to clarify how the statute should be interpreted and applied nationwide.

In its unanimous decision, the Court concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires federal courts of appeals to apply a deferential “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing factual findings made by immigration authorities. Justice Jackson acknowledged in the Court’s opinion that the statute does not explicitly use the phrase “substantial evidence.” However, she explained that several provisions of the INA effectively establish that same standard by limiting the scope of judicial review. One key provision, Section 1252(b)(4)(B), states that administrative findings of fact are considered conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a different conclusion based on the evidence. In other words, federal courts cannot overturn the BIA’s factual determinations simply because judges might have weighed the evidence differently. Instead, they must defer to the agency’s decision unless the evidence is so strong that no reasonable factfinder could agree with the agency’s conclusion. This approach reflects a longstanding principle in administrative law that courts should respect the expertise and fact-finding role of specialized agencies. Immigration judges and the BIA are tasked with evaluating testimony, reviewing evidence, and making credibility determinations, all of which place them in a better position than appellate courts to assess the factual record in asylum cases.

Justice Jackson also emphasized that the Court’s decision builds on earlier precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in INS v. Elias-Zacarias. In that case, the Court held that asylum applicants seeking to overturn an agency’s persecution determination must show that the evidence they presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to recognize a well-founded fear of persecution. Jackson explained that when Congress later amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, including the addition of Section 1252(b)(4)(B), those amendments effectively codified the standard described in Elias-Zacarias rather than replacing it. The legislative history indicated that Congress intended to reinforce a deferential approach to reviewing immigration decisions. By reaffirming this interpretation, the Supreme Court resolved the disagreement among lower courts and clarified that the substantial-evidence standard governs judicial review of persecution findings in asylum cases. Under this framework, appellate courts must uphold the BIA’s determinations unless the record clearly compels a different result. The Court’s ruling therefore strengthens the role of immigration authorities in evaluating asylum claims while establishing a consistent standard for federal courts reviewing those decisions.