The Supreme Court has determined that a federal court reviewing the agency’s determination that an asylum applicant did suffer serious enough harm to qualify as past persecution must apply the deferential substantial evidence standard. The Court clarified that the standard applies to both the review of the correctness of the underlying factual findings as well as the question as to whether these findings meet the legal definition of persecution.
“Our decisions in Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U. S. 209 (2024), and Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. 221 (2020), are not to the contrary. In those cases, we held that a mixed question of law and fact could qualify as a ‘question of law’ exempt from §1252(a)’s bar on judicial review. But unlike §1252(b), §1252(a) does not speak to the standards of review for removal orders; rather, it addresses a court’s ability to review removal orders at all. As a result, whether a given issue is treated as a question of law exempt from the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions tells us nothing about the type of review the court must afford to that issue under other provisions of the statute.”
The full text of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-777_9ol1.pdf