Urias-Orellana v. Bondi:  Courts must apply “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing asylum claims based on persecution

By Greg Mermelstein, Deputy Director & General Counsel, Missouri Public Defender

            Federal courts reviewing an asylum seeker’s claims of past or future persecution must uphold the agency’s determination if “substantial evidence” supports it, the U.S. Supreme Court held March 4 in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.

            Douglas Urias-Orellana and his family fled El Salvador and entered the U.S. without authorization.

            They sought asylum on grounds that a hitman had targeted their family in El Salvador, and had already shot two family members.  The family had moved around in El Salvador to avoid being attacked, and Urias-Orellana had been assaulted when he briefly returned to his hometown.

            Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), asylum seekers are eligible for asylum if they are unable to return to their country because of a well-founded fear of past or future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinions, or membership in a particular social group.

            The Immigration Judge credited Urias-Orellana’s account of the facts, but concluded those facts were insufficient to prove fear of future persecution.  The judge noted the family had successfully escaped danger in the past by relocating within El Salvador.

            The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.  It found that because Urias-Orellana “only had problems when he returned to his hometown,” his testimony didn’t establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.

            The First Circuit affirmed.  It held its review was limited to whether the agency’s determination regarding fear of persecution was supported by “substantial evidence.”

            The Supreme Court granted cert. to decide whether the First Circuit applied the correct standard of review.

Holding

            The Court affirmed, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Jackson.

            INA does not use the phrase “substantial evidence”, the Court said.  But Sec. 1253(b)(4)(B) states that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

            “This Court has previously interpreted subparagraph (B) to prescribe a deferential, ‘substantial-evidence standard’ for review of agency factual findings”, the Court said.

            “Substantial evidence”, the Court said, means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate support for a conclusion.”

            Some reviewing courts have applied a substantial evidence test to the agency’s factual findings but reviewed its legal conclusions de novo.  That’s wrong, the Court held.

            Regarding persecution determinations, “Sec. 1252(b)(4)(B) requires courts to review the entirety of the agency’s conclusions – both the underlying factual findings and the application of the INA to those findings – for substantial evidence.”

            “Thus, in the language of the statute, the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under [INA] is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’”, the Court said.

            The First Circuit applied the “appropriate standard,” the Court concluded.