asylum

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether, under the Suspension Clause, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is constitutional as applied to noncitizens who have secretly entered the United States. Petitioner Department of Homeland Security argues that noncitizens entering clandestinely, treated properly as seeking initial admission to the United States, are entitled to no due process protections; that such noncitizens are not entitled to habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause; and that even if the Suspension Clause does apply, the statute’s provision of administrative review and limited judicial review are sufficient. Respondent Thuraissigiam counters that notwithstanding the Government’s misreading of applicable law, clandestinely entering noncitizens within the United States are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment; that the Suspension Clause does apply to individuals in immigration proceedings; and that the statute provides an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus. This case has implications for states’ resource spending, revenue collection, and citizen welfare. Additionally, this case’s outcome could impact federal courts’ work load, depending on whether federal courts must open up to a new class of alien-petitioners.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Daniel Negusie was forcibly conscripted into the Eritrean military but refused to fight. After two years’ imprisonment at an Eritrean military camp, he spent four years serving as a guard at the camp, without freedom to leave. His duties included keeping prisoners in the sun and denying them showers and fresh air, but he was verbally reprimanded for sometimes refusing to do so. Eventually, Negusie escaped to the U.S., where an immigration judge denied his application for protection from deportation. The judge held that, under the “persecutor bar” of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), Negusie’s role in the persecution of others made him ineligible for refugee status, notwithstanding his service as a guard and his probable torture if returned to Eritrea. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. On certiorari, Negusie argues that the INA’s persecutor bar is not meant to apply to individuals who involuntarily took part in the persecution of others. Attorney General Mukasey responds that the bar contains no voluntariness requirement, and that the Court should defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA. The Court’s decision could affect the international community’s approach to human rights; it will clarify whether the U.S. Attorney General has discretion to consider an individual’s degree of moral culpability before granting or denying him refuge, or deciding to deport him to a country where he faces danger, which is considered a violation of core human rights principles.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case involves a decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), determining that certain facts did not amount to persecution. Petitioners Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana and his family contend that whether the undisputed facts meet the legal threshold of persecution is primarily a legal question, and so federal courts must apply de novo review. Respondent Attorney General Pamela Bondi counters that whether an asylum seeker has met their burden of proving persecution is a fact-intensive inquiry, and substantial-evidence review should apply. The outcome of this case could impact the consistency of asylum petitions moving forward, the efficiency of judicial review in asylum cases, and may implicate further understanding of Loper Bright. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the United States Supreme Court to determine whether a federal court of appeals should presume that an asylum applicant's testimony is credible when the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and an immigration judge (“IJ”) failed to make an explicit adverse credibility determination about the testimony. Ming Dai, an asylum applicant alleging persecution in China for violating the one-child family-planning policy, argues that his testimony must be deemed credible because (1) a federal court of appeals cannot evaluate credibility on its own and (2) the IJ and BIA failed to explicitly state that his testimony lacked credibility as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to make an adverse credibility finding. The government counters that presumed credibility in absence of an explicit adverse credibility determination circumvents the statutory limitation that federal appellate courts are only permitted to reject the IJ or BIA’s determination that an applicant’s testimony is insufficient to meet his burden of proof if no reasonable adjudicator could have reached the same determination. The outcome of this case has important implications for the asylum process, immigration rights for asylum seekers, and the differing roles and responsibilities of administrative agencies and appellate courts. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources