ADVERTISEMENT
In the final analysis, the Supreme Court’s decision on asylum appeals is a move toward judicial economy at the potential cost of individual oversight. It reinforces the weight of the initial “day in court,” placing a heavy burden of proof on anyone seeking to challenge the narrative established in those first, critical hours of testimony. Whether this leads to a more efficient, predictable system or a more rigid, unforgiving one will be the subject of much debate in the years to come. For now, the message from the highest court is clear: the facts of an immigration case belong to the immigration court, and the path to overturning them has become significantly steeper.
