Trump Admin Gets Another Immigration Win At Supreme Court
In the case of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the federal government. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that federal courts of appeals must use a deferential standard of review when deciding whether asylum seekers have faced the level of persecution needed to qualify for asylum protections.
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their child fled El Salvador in 2021 because they were afraid of violence. They applied for asylum in the United States.
Urias-Orellana said that the family should get asylum because a hitman, or sicario, was after them in El Salvador and had already killed two of his half-brothers. He said that people who worked for this sicario had asked him for money many times and had even attacked him once, according to the SCOTUS Blog.
The Immigration and Nationality Act says that immigration judges look at whether applicants came to the U.S. because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
For Urias-Orellana, a judge said that his experiences did not meet this standard, in part because the family had moved within El Salvador to avoid danger in the past. After this decision, the family’s lawyers asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to look into it.
The board, on the other hand, upheld the judge’s decision on persecution and the order of removal in 2023. “If the BIA denies an asylum claim, asylum seekers can ask a federal court of appeals to review it. The family did what they were asked to do, which led to the Supreme Court case. SCOTUS Blog said, “The justices agreed to settle a disagreement between the federal courts of appeals over what standard of review the courts should use when reviewing a persecution determination.”
The court said on Wednesday that the INA says that appellate courts must use the relatively lenient substantial-evidence standard. Jackson said in the court’s ruling that the BIA’s decision can only be reversed “if, in reviewing the record as a whole, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
Jackson said that the part of the INA that matters “does not use the phrase ‘substantial evidence.'” She went on to say, though, that many other parts of the law “truncate[] the court’s review,” including Section 1252(b)(4)(B), which says that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
Jackson wrote that the country’s highest court has already said that this subsection “prescribe[s] a deferential, ‘substantial-evidence standard’ for review of agency factual findings.”
According to Jackson, the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday also strengthened its 1992 decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, in which most of the justices said that “to obtain judicial reversal” of the agency’s persecution determination, an asylum applicant “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
Jackson said in her ruling that “Congress amended the INA shortly after” that decision, adding what is now Section 1252(b)(4)(B). “Those amendments … codified the Elias-Zacarias standard,” not rejected it.
She said that the law says courts must uphold those findings unless the evidence clearly shows that they are wrong.
Jackson wrote, “The agency’s decision is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.'”
Jackson said that “the force of Elias-Zacarias and [the statutes’] enactment history” meant that the substantial-evidence standard had to apply, according to SCOTUS Blog.
BREAKING: Ilhan Omar KICKED OUT of Democrat Party as Money Laundering Probe EXPLODES! - News
BREAKING: Ilhan Omar KICKED OUT of Democrat Party as Money Laundering Probe EXPLODES!
In a shocking turn of events, Representative Ilhan Omar has become a focal point of controversy within the Democratic Party.
Recent reports indicate that party insiders are increasingly frustrated with the Minnesota congresswoman.
They are reportedly calling for her removal from the party, citing her growing toxicity as a liability in the upcoming elections.
But Omar is not the only progressive figure facing scrutiny.
Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, once considered a rising star within the party, is drawing concern among Democratic leadership.
As the party grapples with these internal conflicts, the political landscape in Washington is shifting dramatically.
Adding to the drama, Congress is preparing to release years of hidden sexual harassment settlement records.
These payouts could expose shocking misconduct on Capitol Hill and potentially implicate powerful lawmakers, further complicating the party’s challenges.
The Omar Controversy
Ilhan Omar’s journey in Congress has been marked by both fierce support and intense criticism.
Her outspoken views on foreign policy, social justice, and immigration have made her a champion for many progressives.
However, her recent controversies have led to a significant backlash.
Insiders within the Democratic Party are reportedly concerned that her continued presence could alienate moderate voters, particularly in swing districts.
As the party prepares for the 2024 elections, the stakes are high.
The call for her departure reflects a broader struggle within the party to balance progressive ideals with the need for electability.
Ocasio-Cortez Under Fire
Alongside Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is also facing increased scrutiny.
Once seen as an unassailable figure in the Democratic Party, her recent actions and statements have raised eyebrows among party leaders.
Ocasio-Cortez’s willingness to challenge the establishment and advocate for bold reforms has garnered her a loyal following.
Yet, as the party navigates a complex political landscape, her approach is being reevaluated.
The concern is that her progressive stance may not resonate with all voters, particularly those in more conservative districts.
The Democratic leadership is now faced with the challenging task of uniting various factions within the party while maintaining their electoral viability.
The Sexual Harassment Settlement Records
In a parallel development, Congress is preparing to unveil years of concealed sexual harassment settlement records.
These records, which detail payouts made to victims, could reveal disturbing patterns of misconduct among lawmakers.
The potential fallout from these revelations could be significant, impacting not just individual politicians but the reputation of the entire Congress.
As the public becomes increasingly aware of these issues, calls for accountability are growing louder.
This situation adds another layer of complexity to the Democratic Party’s current struggles.
With Omar and Ocasio-Cortez under fire, the party must also contend with the implications of these forthcoming disclosures.
The Firing of Kristi Noem
In a surprising twist, reports have emerged regarding the sudden firing of Kristi Noem from the Department of Homeland Security.
The circumstances surrounding her dismissal remain unclear, but insiders suggest that it may be linked to internal conflicts and political maneuvering.
Noem’s departure raises questions about stability within the department and the broader implications for immigration policy.
As the Biden administration faces mounting challenges, the loss of a key figure like Noem could have far-reaching effects.
The View’s Cancellation Rumors
Meanwhile, over at The View, producers appear to be scrambling as rumors of cancellation swirl.
In an unexpected move, the show recently invited a conservative guest, leading to an explosive clash on air.
This decision seems aimed at appeasing critics and regulators who have voiced concerns about the show’s direction.
However, it remains to be seen whether this strategy will quell the mounting criticism or further alienate viewers.
The dynamic at The View reflects the broader challenges facing media outlets in a polarized political climate.
Conclusion
As the Democratic Party navigates these turbulent waters, the future of key figures like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hangs in the balance.
The party’s ability to address internal conflicts, respond to emerging scandals, and maintain a united front will be critical in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.
With the stakes higher than ever, the coming months will undoubtedly be pivotal for the Democratic Party.
