The US Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously held that federal appellate courts must be highly deferential to administrative adjudications when determining whether undisputed facts amount to “persecution” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The opinion, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, held that the INA requires federal courts to treat Board of Immigration Appeals determinations—on whether an individual has been persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion—as “conclusive” unless a party can prove that a reasonable adjudicator would be “compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

The case involved El Salvador nationals Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana and his family, who sought asylum in 2021 after a hitman targeted Urias-Orellana. An immigration judge determined that Urias-Orellana’s testimony on death threats and physical assault was credible but denied his asylum request, holding that he could not show “past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.” The administrative judge ruled that Urias-Orellana could not show that the harm he faced was “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”

Petitioners contended that since all facts in the case were undisputed, finding persecution was a “mixed question of law and fact” and called for de novo review—when courts take a case as “new” and do not consider lower court holdings on a case.

However, the court was not convinced by the petitioners’ arguments. The justice cited a 1992 decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, as well as 8 USC §1252(b)(4)(B), in which Congress effectively codifies a standard of review that is differential to administrative adjudications.

The Supreme Court decision is a victory for the Department of Justice and the Trump administration, as it fortifies executive power over immigration cases and limits the scope of federal court review.