## Facts

- Maria Cardoza-Fonseca, a Nicaraguan national, entered the United States in 1979 as a visitor and overstayed her visa.
- She applied for (1) withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h) and (2) discretionary asylum under INA § 208(a) as a “refugee.”
- She testified that her brother, a political opponent of the Sandinista government, had been tortured for his political activities.
- She asserted that the government knew they fled together and that, if returned, she feared interrogation about her brother, exposure of her political opposition, and torture.
- The immigration judge found she failed to prove a “clear probability of persecution” and denied both withholding and asylum under that same standard.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, treating “well-founded fear” for asylum as effectively requiring the same showing as “clear probability.”
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding asylum’s “well-founded fear” standard is more generous than the withholding standard and remanded for application of the correct asylum standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the “clear probability” / “more likely than not” standard for withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h) also governs asylum eligibility under INA § 208(a).
2. Whether “well-founded fear of persecution” requires proof equivalent to a greater-than-50% likelihood of persecution if returned.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment that asylum and withholding use different standards.
- The Court held that INA § 243(h)’s “clear probability” / “more likely than not” standard does not govern asylum eligibility under INA § 208(a).
- The Court concluded that asylum requires a “well-founded fear of persecution,” which can be satisfied by something less than a 50% probability of persecution.
- The Court rejected the agency’s attempt to equate the two standards and declined to defer to that interpretation because Congress’s intent was resolved through statutory construction.

## Legal Principles

- Withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h) requires objective proof that persecution is more likely than not if the applicant is returned.
- Asylum eligibility under INA § 208(a), incorporating the “refugee” definition, requires a “well-founded fear of persecution,” which is a lower threshold than “more likely than not.”
- The asylum inquiry includes a subjective element (the applicant’s fear) and an objective element (that the fear is well-founded); the presence of “fear” distinguishes asylum from withholding’s formulation.
- When statutory text, structure, and history show Congress intended different standards, courts need not accept an agency interpretation that collapses those standards into one.

## Conclusion

The Court held that asylum eligibility turns on a “well-founded fear of persecution,” a standard intentionally set below the “clear probability” requirement for withholding of deportation, requiring the agency to evaluate asylum claims under the more permissive asylum standard rather than the withholding standard.


I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)