Justices unanimously rule against asylum seekers on question of credibility

[brooklynite]

Source: SCOTUSBlog

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the federal government in a dispute over when federal courts can treat asylum seekers’ testimony as credible. In a unanimous opinion in the consolidated cases of Garland v. Dai and Garland v. Alcaraz-Enriquez, the court rejected the approach of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had previously taken asylum seekers’ testimony as credible when reviewing cases where immigration courts were silent on applicants’ credibility. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the court.

In argument and briefing, the government contended that the 9th Circuit approach violated standards of federal court review. Under the “substantial evidence” standard, federal courts accept the immigration courts’ factual determinations unless the record compels a contrary conclusion. The government argued that the 9th Circuit’s rule allowed federal courts to reject agency decisions even when not compelled to do so.

The asylum seekers, meanwhile, argued that administrative law principles supported the lower court’s approach. In particular, they argued that the rule flows from the Chenery doctrine, which requires federal courts to review an agency’s reasons and findings as given. The asylum seekers asserted that the government’s approach would allow federal courts to affirm on the basis of adverse credibility findings that the agency never made.

In siding with the government, the Supreme Court concluded that the 9th Circuit’s rule “cannot be reconciled” with the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which mandates a “highly deferential” standard of review when federal courts review decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Read more: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-unanimously-rule-against-asylum-seekers-on-question-of-credibility/

[Polybius]

1. Always good to see unanimous rulings

Hard to disagree with any of them.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. No wonder we become more authoritarian

Justices at various levels rule this and that way, then it gets passed up the food chain and the highest justices rule on it. They may be divided, or they may agree wholeheartedly, but judges in lower courts disagreed or the issue would never have made it all the way up.

[cstanleytech]

3. If the law is Constitutional their hands are tied so in this case

if you have a problem with the ruling the ones to blame are the legislators.