INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 · U.S. Supreme Court
Holding and boundaries
Distinguished the asylum 'well-founded fear' standard from the more demanding withholding-of-removal standard.
Scope and limitations: Eligibility still requires fact-specific proof and does not guarantee discretionary relief.
2 issue placements
Asylum Access & Due Process
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Asylum Access & Due Process. Fit tier: Direct. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.
Scope and limitations: Eligibility still requires fact-specific proof and does not guarantee discretionary relief.
Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required
Indo-Tibetan Migration, Asylum & Consular Access
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Indo-Tibetan Migration, Asylum & Consular Access. Fit tier: Strong analogue. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.
Scope and limitations: Eligibility still requires fact-specific proof and does not guarantee discretionary relief.
Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required
Publication and provenance
The authority is published once; issue-specific orientation and fit remain separate placements. Analogue, contextual, and historical-adverse fits are not represented as controlling.
Published under research-publication-clearance-2026-07-21. deterministic validation and objective verification are not claimed.