Supreme Court Limits Federal Judges' Power to Overturn Asylum Denials

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi that federal appeals courts must defer to the findings of immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals when reviewing asylum claims. The decision affirms that the substantial-evidence standard is the correct measure for evaluating whether an asylum seeker faces persecution, preventing federal courts from conducting independent fact-finding.

Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that appeals courts may only diverge from an agency determination if the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. The ruling stemmed from the case of Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, a Salvadoran national whose claims of being targeted by a hitman were deemed credible but insufficient to meet the legal definition of persecution. The court upheld a prior decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

This ruling provides a significant legal victory for the Donald Trump administration, aligning with efforts to curb asylum approvals and accelerate deportations. By establishing a high evidentiary burden for judicial overrides, the decision limits the ability of migrants to use the federal court system to stall deportation proceedings and restricts judicial intervention to cases involving egregiously unfair decisions.