Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · ¶39
Given the force of Elias-Zacarias and IIRIRA's enactment history, we cannot accept petitioners' arguments about the applicable standard of review. Petitioners primarily contend that Congress meant for de novo review to apply to persecution determinations because § 1252(b)(4)(B) requires deference only for “findings of fact” and no subparagraph of § 1252(b)(4) explicitly addresses the “mixed question of law and fact” that is the determination of past persecution and fear of future persecution. See Brief for Petitioners 15–16.Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.