The court case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca established that individuals seeking asylum in the United States are only required to demonstrate a “well-founded fear” of persecution in their home country, rather than proving that it is more probable than not that they will be persecuted. This ruling allows them to qualify for asylum without having to meet the stricter standard for withholding of removal. The court’s decision was influenced by the wording of the statute, legislative history, and the United Nations refugee convention and protocol. Overall, this decision aims to provide flexibility in the adjudication of asylum cases and ensure fairness for those seeking asylum.
The United States Supreme Court decided the legal case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca in 1987, which addressed the criteria for asylum eligibility in the country. The Court ruled that individuals seeking asylum must demonstrate a “well-founded fear” of persecution, and this standard can be met even if they cannot prove that persecution is more likely than not to occur if they return to their home country. In other words, individuals can apply for asylum in the United States if they have a legitimate reason to fear persecution in their home country, without needing to prove definite persecution. For instance, if someone comes from a country where the government frequently targets individuals of a specific religion, they may have a well-founded fear of persecution and can seek asylum in the United States based on this fear. The Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca clarified the asylum eligibility standard, making it easier for individuals to seek asylum and find protection from persecution in their home countries.
Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca is a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the interpretation of the refugee provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The main issue in this case was whether an applicant for asylum must prove that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” or if it is sufficient to show a “reasonable possibility of persecution.”
The Supreme Court ruled that an applicant for asylum only needs to show a “reasonable possibility of persecution” to be eligible for asylum, rather than the higher standard of a “well-founded fear of persecution.”
The ruling in Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca made it easier for asylum seekers to meet the eligibility requirements for asylum by lowering the burden of proof from a “well-founded fear of persecution” to a “reasonable possibility of persecution.”
Yes, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca applied retroactively, meaning that it applied to cases that were pending at the time of the decision as well as future cases.
Yes, the government can still deny asylum to an applicant if they can establish that the applicant falls within one of the statutory bars to asylum, such as having committed a serious crime or posing a threat to national security.
Yes, there are exceptions to the “reasonable possibility of persecution” standard. For example, if an applicant has firmly resettled in another country or if they have voluntarily returned to their home country, they may be ineligible for asylum.
Yes, an applicant for asylum can appeal a denial of their application based on the “reasonable possibility of persecution” standard. They can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and, if necessary, to the federal courts.
Yes, Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca also established the principle that the burden of proof in asylum cases rests with the applicant, meaning that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide evidence to support their claim for asylum.
No, Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca has not been superseded or modified by any subsequent court decisions or changes in the law. It remains an important precedent in asylum law.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 16th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/ins-v-cardoza-fonseca/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Ins V. Cardoza-Fonseca. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/ins-v-cardoza-fonseca/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Ins V. Cardoza-Fonseca. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/ins-v-cardoza-fonseca/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Ins V. Cardoza-Fonseca. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/ins-v-cardoza-fonseca/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts