Supreme Court on Jurisdiction, Hardship: Wilkinson v. Garland

Wilkinson v. Garland

"This Court now holds that the application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts is reviewable as a question of law under §1252(a)(2)(D). ... The hardship determination in this case was not discretionary. Because the IJ held that M.’s hardship did not satisfy the statutory eligibility criteria, he never reached the second step and exercised his unreviewable discretion to cancel or decline to cancel Wilkinson’s removal. The Third Circuit therefore erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination in this case. ... Today’s decision announces nothing more remarkable than the fact that this Court meant what it said in Guerrero-Lasprilla: Mixed questions of law and fact, even when they are primarily factual, fall within the statutory definition of “questions of law” in §1252(a)(2)(D) and are therefore reviewable. ... For these reasons, the Court reverses the Third Circuit’s “jurisdictional” decision, vacates its judgment, and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[Justice Jackson concurred; Roberts, Alito and Thomas dissented.]