607/2
U.S.2026Background
- Petitioners, Salvadoran natives who entered the United States without authorization, sought asylum after being placed in removal proceedings. 1
- Urias-Orellana testified that a hitman had targeted him since 2016, threatened his family, and assaulted him during a return trip to his hometown. 2
- The Immigration Judge credited the testimony but found it insufficient to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution and ordered removal. 3
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding the harm did not rise to persecution and future danger existed only when Urias-Orellana returned home. 4
- The First Circuit affirmed under substantial-evidence review, holding the record did not compel a contrary result. 5
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for persecution determinations 6 | Urias-Orellana argued de novo review applies to the mixed question. | Bondi argued substantial-evidence review governs. | Substantial-evidence review applies to the whole persecution determination. 7 |
| Whether §1252(b)(4)(B) covers mixed questions 8 | Urias-Orellana said the statute mentions only factual findings. | Bondi said the statute and precedent defer to the agency's full determination. | The statute requires deference to both facts and application of law to facts. 9 |
| Effect of Elias-Zacarias and later amendments 10 | Urias-Orellana said later statutory changes displaced that precedent. | Bondi said IIRIRA codified Elias-Zacarias. | Elias-Zacarias plus IIRIRA confirm substantial-evidence review. 11 |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (asylum persecution determinations are reversed only if the evidence compels the opposite result 12)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2020) (§1252(b)(4)(B) means substantial-evidence review 13)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97 (U.S. 2019) (defines substantial evidence as evidence a reasonable mind might accept 14)
- Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2024) (mixed questions can be 'questions of law' for jurisdiction purposes 15)
- Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221 (U.S. 2020) (mixed questions can qualify as questions of law under the INA's jurisdictional provisions 16)
- Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69 (U.S. 2023) (Congress is presumed aware of this Court's precedents 17)
- Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357 (U.S. 2021) (immigration judges make factual and credibility findings 18)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (substantial evidence means relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept 19)