Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · ¶27

Though the courts of appeals apply varying standards to the agency's persecution determination, we have already concluded that these determinations receive substantial- evidence review. Specifically, in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U. S. 478 (1992), we held that “to obtain judicial reversal” of the agency's persecution determination, an asylum applicant “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfnder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Id., at 483–484. To be sure, Congress amended the INA shortly after our decision. But those amendments—and the addition of § 1252(b)(4) in particular—codified the Elias-Zacarias standard. As such, the statute as it reads today requires substantial-evidence review for the entirety of the persecution determination.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.