The United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that federal appeals courts must defer to immigration agencies’ determinations on what qualifies as “persecution” for asylum claims, upholding the denial of protection for a Salvadoran family in a decision supporting the Trump administration’s stance.
The case, decided on March 4, centered on Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife, and their child, who sought asylum after entering the US from El Salvador in 2021, claiming threats from a hitman.
An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected their application, finding no well-founded fear of future persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In Urias-Orellana et al. v. Bondi, the court held that appellate reviews must apply the “substantial-evidence” standard, barring judges from fresh examinations of facts.
The justices stated: “Courts of appeals must apply the restrictive substantial-evidence standard to the BIA’s determinations. Federal courts cannot conduct a de novo (fresh) review of whether facts qualify as ‘persecution’. The record in this specific case did not compel a contrary finding to the agency’s initial denial of asylum.”
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the outcome in a statement on X, saying: “This is a win for the American people, the rule of law, and common sense. For years, activist judges have used the federal judiciary to shield illegal aliens from deportations, simply because those illegal aliens could make false persecution claims—often from scripts provided by open-border NGOs—even when the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled no such fears were credible.”
DHS added it would persist in deporting undocumented individuals to ensure national security.
