The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal appeals courts must apply a deferential standard of review when evaluating the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination regarding whether asylum seekers faced sufficient persecution to qualify for asylum protections. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous court, stated that appeals courts can only deviate from the Board’s judgment when the evidence presented is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
This ruling upheld a decision made by the First Circuit Court of Appeals and represents a significant victory for the Trump administration, with implications that extend beyond this specific case.
Here’s the background:
The petitioners — Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their minor child (identified only as “G.E.U.G.”) — entered the United States illegally in 2021 and were placed into removal proceedings in the Boston immigration court.
They conceded they were removable but claimed they would be harmed if returned to El Salvador by a “sicario” who had been targeting the father since 2016, when the hitman shot two of his half-brothers and “vowed to kill every member of his family”.
The family claimed they repeatedly moved within El Salvador, but:
- After each move, Urias-Orellana was threatened by men who demanded money and warned that they would leave him like his brothers if he did not pay up. One of the men even physically assaulted Urias-Orellana when he returned to his hometown for a brief visit.
Finally, the family alleged they decided to leave El Salvador after Douglas Urias-Orellana was told that unidentified men were “asking around town about the arrival of any newcomers”.
In order to fully understand the case, here’s what the process looks like under the Immigration and Nationality Act:
- DOJ initiates removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Immigration judges are Article II rather than Article III judges. They are employees of the executive branch.
- The immigration judge conducts a removal hearing.
- If the alien is determined to be removable, the immigration judge enters an order of removal. This permits ICE to deport him. This is the “due process” allowed in immigration cases.
- Once ordered removed, the alien can file an asylum claim in which they have to show that returning home would subject them to “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
- The immigration judge renders a decision on those issues. If denied, the alien can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Like immigration judges, the BIA is an Article II entity, not a federal court.
- If the alien is still an unhappy camper, he can appeal to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the first time a federal (Article III) judge is authorized to examine the case. The law specifically says that the court may only review issues of law; it may not reexamine the factual findings.
At that point, the alien faces one of two outcomes: either he is granted asylum or he boards a plane back home.
In this case, the immigration judge rejected his asylum claim, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld that decision. Urias-Orellana then took his case to the First Circuit, which similarly dismissed his claim. Following that, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the law was flawed.
The atextual deference regime driving the decision below invites inconsistent and incorrect results, often with life-threatening consequences. This Court should enforce the INA’s text and restore the Judiciary’s proper role in asylum cases. Federal courts must exercise their own independent judgment in deciding what constitutes “persecution” under the law. Because the First Circuit did not do so, its judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Essentially, his legal team was using the precedent set in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo to attack the deference to immigration courts required in the INA. For context, there are about 2.4 million pending asylum claims. Having each of those adjudicated and reviewed in immigration channels and again by a federal appeals court is not workable.
If they had succeeded, it would have allowed every asylum claim to undergo a new round of “fact-finding” at the Appeals Court level. This would have effectively reduced the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to an advisory role and brought the adjudication of asylum claims to a standstill, which was the true intention behind the case.
However, beyond preventing hostile actors from obstructing the immigration appeals system, the ruling established a clear standard: courts must adhere to the existing law rather than creating the law they wish existed. Although the Supreme Court initially considered this case before the second Trump administration, this ruling is certainly a positive outcome.
