Patel v. Garland

Patel v. Garland

Opinion

Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court.

] Congress has comprehensively detailed the rules by which noncitizens may enter and live in the United States. When noncitizens violate those rules, Congress has provided procedures for their removal. At the same time, there is room for mercy: Congress has given the Attorney General power to grant relief from removal in certain circumstances.

Federal courts have a very limited role to play in this process. With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal. We must decide how far this bar extends—specifically, whether it precludes judicial review of factual findings that underlie a denial of relief. It does. [*8] 

] A noncitizen who enters the United States illegally or who otherwise violates its laws may be removed from the country. 8 U. S. C. §§1182, 1227, 1229a. Removal proceedings are conducted by immigration judges in the United States Department of Justice who exercise the authority of the Attorney General. §1229a(a)(1); 8 CFR §§1240.1(a)(1), 1245.2(a)(1)(i) (2021). If an immigration judge decides that a noncitizen is removable, the judge is authorized to order the removal of the noncitizen from the United States. 8 U. S. C. §1229a(c)(5).

] Being found removable is not always the end of the story, though, because Congress has authorized relief from removal in certain contexts. For example, the Attorney General has discretion to adjust the status of an eligible noncitizen who entered the United States illegally to that of lawful permanent resident, forgiving the illegal entry and protecting the noncitizen from removal on that ground. See §1255(i). (As with authority over removal generally, the Attorney General has delegated to immigration judges the ability to grant relief from removal. 8 CFR §1240.1(a)(1)(ii).) To be eligible for such relief, a noncitizen must show that he satisfies various threshold requirements established by Congress. Yet eligibility only gets a noncitizen so far. Because relief from removal [*9]  is always “‘a matter of grace,’” even an eligible noncitizen must persuade the immigration judge that he merits a favorable exercise of discretion. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 308, 121 S. Ct. 2271, 150 L. Ed. 2d 347 (2001). And if the judge decides that denial would be appropriate regardless of eligibility, the judge need not address eligibility at all. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U. S. 24, 25-26, 97 S. Ct. 200, 50 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1976) (per curiam).

] Congress has sharply circumscribed judicial review of the discretionary-relief process. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B) provides:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.