The Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision Wednesday in an immigration case involving the Trump administration, ruling that federal appeals courts must defer to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals when evaluating whether an asylum applicant’s mistreatment meets the legal definition of persecution. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the 9-0 opinion.
The case centered on how courts should review asylum claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows protections for individuals who demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. While asylum seekers can appeal denials, the Court considered whether determinations about persecution are factual findings that must be reviewed under a deferential “substantial evidence” standard. The justices concluded that federal courts must apply that standard when reviewing the agency’s conclusions.
The dispute involved Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana and his family, who fled El Salvador in 2021, citing threats against relatives. An immigration judge denied their asylum request, noting in part that the family had relocated within the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to overturn it, citing the need to defer to the agency’s findings if supported by substantial evidence.
The ruling reinforces the standard that limits federal courts from reinterpreting factual determinations made by immigration authorities, provided those decisions are supported by reasonable and probative evidence. The decision comes as President Donald Trump has advocated for changes aimed at tightening asylum policies and streamlining immigration proceedings.