Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

Read a random definition: responsive action

A quick definition of INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca:

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca is a court case that decided that people seeking asylum in the United States only need to show a "well-founded fear" of persecution in their home country, not that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted. This means that they do not have to meet the stricter standard for withholding of removal to qualify for asylum. The court based its decision on the language of the statute, legislative history, and the United Nations refugee convention and protocol. The decision provides flexibility in asylum adjudication and is meant to be fair to people seeking asylum.

A more thorough explanation:

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca is a legal case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1987. The case dealt with the standard for eligibility for asylum in the United States.

The Supreme Court held that to qualify for asylum, applicants have to show that they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution, and that asylum-seekers can satisfy this standard even if they do not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted if returned to their home country.

This means that if someone is afraid of being persecuted in their home country, they can apply for asylum in the United States. They do not have to prove that they will definitely be persecuted if they go back home, but they do have to show that they have a good reason to be afraid.

For example, if someone is from a country where people of a certain religion are often targeted by the government, they may have a well-founded fear of persecution if they go back home. They can apply for asylum in the United States based on this fear.

The Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca clarified the standard for eligibility for asylum in the United States. It made it easier for people to apply for asylum and seek protection from persecution in their home countries.

INS | INS v. Elias-Zacarias

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
RoaldDahl
16:05
dodged the mich r wave what does this mean
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:06
it means you will not be rejected today and may be accepted or WL in the future
Just got my Michigan rejection
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.