ADVERTISEMENT
For years, the asylum process has functioned as a multi-layered gauntlet. An applicant typically begins their journey in an immigration court, where a judge acts as the primary factfinder. This judge evaluates testimony, weighs the credibility of the applicant’s claims of persecution, and reviews evidence regarding the political or social climate of the applicant’s home country. If the claim is denied, the individual may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Beyond that, the case enters the federal appellate system. Historically, there has been a degree of tension regarding how much these federal appellate courts should “look under the hood” of the original factual findings. The Supreme Court’s latest intervention has effectively closed the hood, reinforcing the authority of the initial factfinders.
