Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca
| INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 7, 1986 Decided March 9, 1987 | |
| Full case name | Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca |
| Citations | 480 U.S. 421 (more) 107 S. Ct. 1207; 94 L. Ed. 2d 434 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | The Ninth Circuit had remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals to evaluate the asylum claim under a different legal standard, 767 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). The Supreme Court granted the INS's petition for certiorari, 475 U.S. 1009 (1986). |
| Holding | |
| To establish eligibility for asylum under § 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien must show only a well-founded fear of persecution, which is something less than a 50% probability of being persecuted if he returns to his home country. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Dissent | Powell, joined by Rehnquist, White |
| Laws applied | |
| Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) | |
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.