SCOTUS Rules That Courts Should Defer To Immigration Judges On Asylum Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Trump administration on Wednesday in a dispute over the standard for reviewing the cases of illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States.
“We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate standard of review under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] INA. We conclude that the statute requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution. Accordingly, we affirm,” Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court.
Known as Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the case centers around Salvadoran national Humberto Urias-Orellana, who fled his country alongside his family and illegally entered the United States in 2021 after reportedly facing violence in El Salvador. After being designated for removal by federal officials, Urias-Orellana sought asylum under the argument that he and his family faced persecution in El Salvador — claims which were rejected by an immigration judge (IJ).
The immigration judge’s determinations that the alleged violence Urias-Orellana faced did not amount to persecution, and therefore, he did not qualify for asylum, were later affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. (Immigration judges and the BIA fall under the executive branch.) --->READ MORE HERE
Justice Jackson authors unanimous SCOTUS opinion handing Trump an immigration win:
Supreme Court rules federal courts must defer to immigration judges on asylum decisions:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling Wednesday ordering federal appeals courts to defer to immigration judges when reviewing asylum decisions, bolstering the executive branch's authority in immigration cases and handing the Trump administration a win as it pushes an aggressive deportation agenda.
Jackson, a Biden appointee and one of three liberal justices on the high court, wrote that immigration laws require federal courts to use a "substantial-evidence standard" when reviewing immigration judges’ decisions about whether an asylum seeker could face "persecution" if deported.
Jackson emphasized the high bar courts must meet before overturning an immigration judge’s findings, potentially making it more difficult for migrants to challenge their deportations as the Trump administration cracks down on illegal immigration.
"The agency’s determination … is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,’" Jackson wrote.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, migrants can claim asylum when crossing the border without documentation. But immigration judges, who are employees of the Department of Justice, eventually vet those claims and determine whether to grant the migrant asylum, which would allow them to stay in the country, or order their deportation.
The migrant can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is also housed within the executive branch, and can then appeal that decision to the federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.
The decision in this case, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, affirmed that the judicial branch must largely defer to the executive branch’s findings about whether the migrant would suffer persecution if deported, rather than start from scratch and conduct its own review. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment