We'll hear argument next in case 24777 Urias Oreya Nara versus Bonding.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

Deciding whether undisputed facts qualifies persecution under the law involves legal

interpretation, not fact-finding. Even the BIA agrees. It treats the issue as a question

of law subject to de novo review. That should not change when a case reaches federal court.

Indeed, the government concedes that courts must exercise independent judgment when establishing

auxiliary legal principles for use in future cases. They concede that courts have no

deference in interpreting the INA's persecution standard.

And courts have repeatedly established auxiliary legal principles on things like sexual violence,

religious persecution, economic deprivation, and beyond. The courts do not establish those

principles by pondering the term persecution in the abstract. They interpreted the law by applying the

persecution standard to particular sets of undisputed facts. The government wants you to hold

that de novo review applies any time a case supposedly would make new law in some sense,

but substantial evidence review when it wouldn't. There's no principal way to draw that line,

and this court has never tried in similar circumstances.

For instance, De Nova Review applies to all fair use determinations made on undisputed facts,

and all antitrust determinations made on undisputed facts, not just some special subset.

The government's contrary rule here would invite further confusion and collateral litigation.

Better instead to just require De Nova review and let judges get to judging.

The courts of appeals are well equipped for the job.

Several of them already have experience reviewing De Novo, the BIA's persecution determinations,

and they generally review the analogous question whether undisputed facts demonstrate torture under the Convention

...