The Supreme Court sided with the federal government and shot down a push to treat asylum seeker’s testimony as credible. The court unanimously ruled that a previous decision from the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit incorrectly ruled that noncitizens’ testimonies must be treated as credible.
According to The Washington Examiner:
In the case, two men, Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez and Ming Dai, had sought to remain in the United States but were found ineligible based on discrepancies in their testimonies. Alcaraz-Enriquez was accused of lying about beating and raping his girlfriend. Dai was accused of omitting a visit to China when he claimed he was fleeing the communist country.
In both cases, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, the 9th Circuit was wrong to interfere because of a technical question. That court, he said, had no place in imposing its own rules on the administrative requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act when immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals govern that area.
“The Ninth Circuit’s rule has no proper place in a reviewing court’s analysis,” Gorsuch wrote of the circuit’s decision to presume credibility on the part of the two men.
“When it comes to questions of fact — such as the circumstances surrounding Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s prior conviction or Mr. Dai’s alleged persecution — the INA provides that a reviewing court must accept ‘administrative findings’ as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,'” Gorsuch wrote.
This case is the latest in a series of immigration rulings from the Supreme Court. Previously, the court ruled against multiple Trump-era immigration cases after the Biden administration changed the federal government’s positions.