Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us2r19_3e04.pdf
Case background
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and
their minor child are natives of El Salvador who entered the United States
without authorization in 2021. After being placed in removal proceedings,
they applied for asylum, and Urias-Orellana testified that he was being
targeted by a hitman in El Salvador. The Immigration Judge found his
testimony credible but concluded that it did not establish past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, denied the asylum applications, and ordered the family’s
removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. On petition for review,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also affirmed, holding
that, under the substantial-evidence standard of review, the record did not
compel a contrary finding.
Questions Presented
Holding
The Immigration and Nationality Act 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 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A). Section 1252(b)(4)(B) codified the standard of INS v.
Elias-Zacarias: the persecution determination — both the underlying factual
findings and the application of the INA to those findings — is conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary. The judgment of the First Circuit is affirmed.
The Court
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, written by Justice Jackson.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Jackson. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us2r19_3e04.pdf
Case background
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and
their minor child are natives of El Salvador who entered the United States
without authorization in 2021. After being placed in removal proceedings,
they applied for asylum, and Urias-Orellana testified that he was being
targeted by a hitman in El Salvador. The Immigration Judge found his
testimony credible but concluded that it did not establish past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, denied the asylum applications, and ordered the family’s
removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. On petition for review,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also affirmed, holding
that, under the substantial-evidence standard of review, the record did not
compel a contrary finding.
Questions Presented
Holding
The Immigration and Nationality Act 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 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A). Section 1252(b)(4)(B) codified the standard of INS v.
Elias-Zacarias: the persecution determination — both the underlying factual
findings and the application of the INA to those findings — is conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary. The judgment of the First Circuit is affirmed.
The Court
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, written by Justice Jackson.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Jackson. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.