Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.
The Supreme Court addressed whether courts of appeals must use the substantial-evidence standard when reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination of persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court affirmed the First Circuit's decision, holding that the substantial-evidence standard applies to both factual findings and the application of law to those facts. This decision resolves a split among the courts of appeals regarding the standard of review for asylum cases.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.
The Court held that the INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s determination of persecution under §1101(a)(42)(A).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
The case involves the application of the substantial-evidence standard to agency determinations, which is a matter of administrative law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under §1101(a)(42)(A).
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
The case addresses the standard of review that courts must apply to agency decisions, which is a core aspect of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The courts of appeals have split over the extent to which this standard applies to the agency’s determination that an asylum applicant has established persecution.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi that support the summary and concepts above.
The INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard.
Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
The statute as it reads today therefore requires substantial-evidence review.
