The Urias-Orellana v. Bondi Supreme Court ruling addressed how courts review asylum decisions. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the federal government.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the court’s opinion in the case. She said federal appeals courts must apply a deferential review standard.
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi Supreme Court Ruling and Asylum Claims
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana fled El Salvador in 2021 with his wife and child. The family applied for asylum in the United States.
Urias-Orellana said a sicario targeted his family in El Salvador. He said the hitman had already killed two of his half-brothers.
Background of the Urias-Orellana v. Bondi Supreme Court Ruling
The Immigration and Nationality Act defines when asylum may apply. It requires persecution tied to race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.
An immigration judge ruled that Urias-Orellana’s experience did not meet this standard. The judge noted the family had moved within El Salvador to avoid danger.
Appeals Process in the Urias-Orellana v. Bondi Supreme Court Ruling
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the judge’s decision in 2023. The board also kept the family’s removal order in place.
The family then asked a federal appeals court to review the decision. The Supreme Court later agreed to resolve disagreements among appeals courts.
Court Standard in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi Supreme Court Ruling
The court said appellate courts must use the substantial-evidence standard. This standard comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Jackson wrote that agency findings stand unless evidence clearly shows they are wrong. She said courts must review the record as a whole.
