Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · ¶40

With their focus on the metaphorical trees, we think petitioners have missed the forest. It is certainly true that the required persecution determination turns on more than just the facts: The INA's legal standard for “persecution” must be applied to the IJ's findings of fact. But Elias-Zacarias and the subsequent statutory history suggest that Congress meant for the entirety of this kind of “mixed” determination—including both the IJ's factual findings and the application of the statute to those findings—to receive deference under § 1252(b)(4)(B). That makes sense because the overall determination of refugee status primarily requires the IJ to make critical factual findings about a given applicant's experiences in his country of nationality. And even where, as here, the IJ accepts the applicant's testimony as true, the IJ must make an antecedent determination on the factual question of…

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