Term: 2020
Docket: 19-1155
Garland v. Ming Dai
- Pro
19-1155 GARLAND V. DAI DECISION BELOW: 884 F.3d 858 CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-1156 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT CERT. GRANTED 10/2/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant's testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination. 2. Whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam), when it determined in the first instance that respondent was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-70776
In the case of Garland v. Ming Dai, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that courts reviewing an immigrant's request for asylum should not presume that testimony is credible unless an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals explicitly determines it to be so. The court held in a unanimous decision that federal law does not compel such a presumption and reversed the Ninth Circuit’s rule which had been favorable to asylum seekers. This ruling came from two consolidated cases where both immigrants testified about their fear of persecution if they were returned home but neither received explicit credibility determinations from immigration judges or appeals board members who reviewed their cases.
The Supreme Court did not provide a dissenting opinion for the case of Garland v. Ming Dai in 2020. The decision was unanimous, with all justices agreeing that federal courts should not assume an immigrant's testimony is credible unless explicitly stated by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). This ruling overturned a Ninth Circuit precedent which assumed credibility if there was no explicit adverse credibility determination made by the immigration court or BIA.
