Scottrade News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court stood with the federal government on the question of when the federal court can consider asylum seekers’ testimony to be credible.In agreement View In the case of merger Garland v Day with Garland v Alcaraz-Enriquez, The court rejected the practice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which previously considered the asylum seeker’s testimony to be credible when reviewing cases in which the Immigration Court remained silent on the applicant’s credibility. Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion for the court.

In the debate and briefing, the government argued that the Ninth Circuit’s practices violated the federal court’s review standards. Under the “substantial evidence” standard, the Federal Court accepts the immigration court’s determination of fact, unless the record compulsory requires a conclusion to the contrary.The government argues that the rules of the 9th Circuit allow the Federal Court to reject the agency’s decision, even if there is no Forced this way.

At the same time, asylum seekers argue that administrative law principles support the practice of lower courts.In particular, they believe that the rule originated from Chenari Principles that require the Federal Court to review the agency’s reasons and findings As given. The asylum-seekers claimed that the government’s approach would allow the Federal Court to make confirmations based on unfavorable credibility findings that the agency has never made.

The Supreme Court’s side with the government concluded that the rules of the 9th Circuit and the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are “not reconcilable”, which stipulates that the Federal Court shall adopt a “highly respected” review standard when reviewing the Immigration Commission’s decisions. . appeal.

“There is nothing in INA that thinks about anything like the decoration used in the Ninth Tour,” Gorsuch wrote. “And for a long time, review courts’usually were not free to impose’ additional procedural requirements established by judges on institutions that are not stipulated by Congress and not mandated by the Constitution.”

These cases involved Deming’s claims, who sought asylum in China after the authorities targeted him and his wife for violating the one-child policy; Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez was afraid of being involved in his The motherland of Mexico is persecuted and seeks permission to stay in the United States. In both cases, the immigration judge or the immigration appeals board failed to rule on credibility, and the Ninth Circuit considered the asylum seeker’s testimony to be credible in its own review. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Dai was eligible for asylum and ordered the immigration court to reconsider the Alcaraz-Enriquez case.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in two cases and sent back further proceedings based on its opinions.

Please check back as soon as possible for an in-depth analysis of opinions.