{"podcast":{"title":"Swear on the Stand","slug":"swear-on-the-stand-7111404","podcast_index_feed_id":7111404,"rss_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/rss","website_url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear","image_url":"https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/42490093/42490093-1732466737482-64af1021e8b8d.jpg","author":"Daniel W. Swear","episode_count":193,"summary":"Court decisions are complex and difficult to digest. This podcast is designed to educating listeners on current legal decisions in a fun and interesting way. Researched by me and produced with the assistance of AI.","last_synced_at":"2026-07-10T22:18:10.447360+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404"},"episode":{"title":"Urias-Orellana v. Bondi: Standards for Reviewing Persecution Claims","slug":"urias-orellana-v-bondi-standards-for-reviewing-persecution-claims","published_at":"2026-04-12T14:00:00+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/urias-orellana-v-bondi-standards-for-reviewing-persecution-claims","show_page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404","url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear/episodes/Urias-Orellana-v--Bondi-Standards-for-Reviewing-Persecution-Claims-e3hbum4","audio_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/play/117880964/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2026-3-3%2F3c7288b8-efde-633c-1bb8-bb8389b48e85.m4a","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.","meta_description":"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 deci…","key_points":[],"chapters":[],"topics":[],"duration_seconds":2134,"processing_state":"not_requested","actions":[{"name":"request_transcript","method":"POST","url":"https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/urias-orellana-v-bondi-standards-for-reviewing-persecution-claims/transcription-requests","description":"Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode."},{"name":"read_markdown","method":"GET","url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/urias-orellana-v-bondi-standards-for-reviewing-persecution-claims.md","description":"Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource."}]}}