Episode
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi: Standards for Reviewing Persecution Claims
- Podcast
- Swear on the Stand
- Published
- Apr 12, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 2134
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/urias-orellana-v-bondi-standards-for-reviewing-persecution-claims/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/urias-orellana-v-bondi-standards-for-reviewing-persecution-claims.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
This episode is from a Supreme Court of the United States slip opinion from the 2025 term regarding the case Urias-Orellana v. Bondi . In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson , the Court addressed whether federal appeals courts should use a deferential "substantial-evidence" standard or a de novo review when evaluating asylum denials. The petitioners, a family from El Salvador , argued that their experiences with a hitman constituted persecution , but their claims were rejected by lower immigration authorities. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires judges to treat agency findings as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to disagree. By doing so, the Court clarified that the entirety of a persecution determination —including the application of law to specific facts—is subject to this highly deferential level of judicial review.