Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · ¶22
This case involves subparagraph (B), which provides that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” § 1252(b)(4)(B). This Court has previously interpreted subparagraph (B) to prescribe a deferential, “substantial-evidence standard” for review of agency factual findings. Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U. S. 573, 584 (2020). Substantial evidence, we have long emphasized, is “ `more than a mere scintilla,' ” but “means—and means only—`such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' ” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U. S. 97, 103 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197, 229 (1938)). Or, to come full circle, “ `findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.' ” Nasrallah, 590 U.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.