Do Courts Have Jurisdiction to Consider Questions of Fact to Determine Whether a Noncitizen Is Entitled to Eligibility for Discretionary Relief from Removal?

Authors

David L. Hudson Jr., Belmont University - College of Law

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-2021

Abstract

This article previews Patel v. Garland, a United States Supreme Court case addressing the scope of federal court jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as amended by the REAL ID Act. The central question is whether federal courts retain jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary factual determinations underlying eligibility for discretionary relief from removal, or whether the statute’s bar on reviewing “any judgment” precludes judicial review of such threshold findings. The case arises from the denial of adjustment of status to Pankajkumar Patel, deemed inadmissible for allegedly falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen on a driver’s license application. Both petitioner and the United States contend that the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the jurisdictional bar too broadly by foreclosing review of factual determinations related to eligibility. A court-appointed amicus defends the Eleventh Circuit’s literal reading of the statute. The case implicates a circuit split, the presumption of judicial review over administrative action, and the immigration rule of lenity, with significant consequences for noncitizens seeking discretionary relief from removal.

Recommended Citation

David L. Hudson Jr., Do Courts Have Jurisdiction to Consider Questions of Fact to Determine Whether a Noncitizen Is Entitled to Eligibility for Discretionary Relief from Removal? (20-979), 49 Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 23 (November 29, 2021).