Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · ¶33

Elias-Zacarias thus clarified that the INA's provision for substantial-evidence review encompassed not only the agency's factual findings but also the application of those findings to the statutory standard for persecution. Indeed, following our decision, the courts of appeals overwhelmingly understood it to require substantial-evidence review of the entirety of the persecution determination. See, e.g., Klawit ter v. INS, 970 F. 2d 149, 152 (CA6 1992) (“According to the Supreme Court, the Board's determination [a noncitizen] is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless the [noncitizen] shows that the evidence he or she presented was `so compelling that no reasonable factfnder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution' ” (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U. S., at 483–484)).

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