Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 24-1042 · judgment November 14, 2024
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a First Circuit decision below and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.
Question presented
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that noncitizens on American soil are generally eligible for asylum if they qualify as a "refugee." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (A). A refugee is someone with "a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Id. § 1101(a)(42). Noncitizens are presumptively eligible for asylum if they have "suffered persecution in the past." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). If ordered removed by an immigration judge (IJ), noncitizens may appeal the removal order-and with it, the denial of asylum-to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). From there, "judicial review" is available in "an appropriate court of appeals." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). The INA mandates judicial deference on "findings of fact" and three other kinds of administrative decisions. Id. § 1252(b)(4). The statute also explicitly provides for judicial review of the BIA's decisions on "questions of law," but does not establish a deferential standard of review for such decisions. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), (b)(9). The question presented is: Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the BIA's judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Nicholas Robert Rosellini
Lathan & Watkins LLP
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage · 6 merits
(6 supporting pet./neither)
Argument & decision
Argued December 1, 2025 — Nicholas Rosellini · Joshua Dos Santos. Audio and transcript
Decided March 4, 2026. Opinion by Jackson.
Proceedings
- Apr 06 2026Judgment Issued.
- Mar 04 2026Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Jackson, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
- Dec 01 2025Argued. For petitioners: Nicholas Rosellini, San Francisco, Cal. For respondent: Joshua Dos Santos, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
- Nov 10 2025Reply of petitioners Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 31 2025Electronic record received from the Board of Immigration Appeals on file with the Clerk.
- Oct 28 2025Electronic record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on file with the Clerk.
- Oct 22 2025CIRCULATED
- Oct 21 2025Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- Oct 17 2025SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 1, 2025.
- Oct 09 2025Brief of respondent Pamela Bondi, Att'y Gen. filed.
- Sep 30 2025Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.
- Sep 03 2025Brief amici curiae of American Gateways, et al. filed.
- Sep 03 2025Brief amicus curiae of Professor Nancy Morawetz filed.
- Sep 03 2025Brief amicus curiae of Center for Individual Rights filed.
- Sep 03 2025Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law and International Human Rights Law Scholars filed.
- Sep 03 2025Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed.
- Sep 03 2025Amici brief of Former Executive Office for Immigration Review Judges not accepted for filing. (To be corrected - September 9, 2025)
- Sep 03 2025Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office for Immigration Review Judges filed. (Corrected)
- Aug 27 2025Brief of petitioners Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al. filed.
- Jul 30 2025As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.
- Jul 24 2025Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al.
- Jul 16 2025Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 27, 2025. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 9, 2025.
- Jul 14 2025Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
- Jun 30 2025Petition GRANTED.
- Jun 23 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/26/2025.
- Jun 03 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2025.
- Jun 02 2025Reply of petitioners Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- May 16 2025Brief of respondent Pamela Bondi, Attorney General in support filed.
- Apr 11 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 16, 2025.
- Apr 10 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 16, 2025 to May 16, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 20 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 16, 2025.
- Mar 18 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 26, 2025 to April 16, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 24 2025Brief amicus curiae of American Gateways filed.
- Feb 12 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 26, 2025.
- Feb 11 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 24, 2025 to March 26, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 23 2025Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.
- Jan 17 2025