On May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. ____(2022) and held that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to review (and therefore correct) factual determinations made by immigrations judges with respect to granting or denying adjustment of status as a form of relief from removal.
Break it down for me a little more ...
The Background Facts
In the 1990s, Patel and his wife entered the United States without inspection, and in 2007 they applied for adjustment of status under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that permits those who entered without inspection to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident (otherwise, they would have had to leave the US and apply for permanent residence at a consulate). If granted, their adjustment application would have excused the illegal entry and made him and his wife permanent residents.
While his application for adjustment of status was pending, though, Patel applied for a Georgia driver’s license, and on that application checked a box stating he was a US Citizen even though he was not.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application for adjustment on the basis of that misrepresentation because one of the requirements for adjustment is that the person be admissible for permanent residence, and a false representation of US Citizenship for any purpose or benefit under state or federal law renders someone inadmissible.
Several years later, DHS initiated removal proceedings against the Patels because they were present in the US without having been admitted. Patel conceded this allegation, but sought relief from removal by again requesting adjustment to permanent resident status. This request raised the same question as before, namely whether the misrepresentation of citizenship on the driver’s license application rendered him ineligible for this discretionary relief. Patel admitted that he checked the box, but argued that he did so accidentally and therefore without the subjective intent to commit a misrepresentation.
The Procedural History
The Immigration Judge, in his discretion, denied Patel and his wife the relief they requested, concluding that Patel was evasive when asked about how he made the mistake, that Patel made other misrepresentations, and that Patel’s testimony was not credible. As a result, Patel and his wife were ordered removed from the United States.
Patel appealed his decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which determined that the judge’s factual findings “were not clearly erroneous” and dismissed his appeal.
Patel then appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that any reasonable judge would have been “compelled to conclude” his testimony was credible and that he made an honest mistake on the form.
A panel of judges from the 11th Circuit determined that they lacked jurisdiction to consider Patel’s claim because federal law prohibits judicial review of “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” under the adjustment of status provisions.
Following a request that the issue be reheard before the full slate of judges at the 11th Circuit, both Patel and the Government argued that the panel had erred, although for different reasons. A majority of the 11th Circuit agreed with the panel decision and held that all factual determinations made as part of considering a request for discretionary relief fall within the statute’s prohibition on judicial review.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because the 11th Circuit’s ruling widened a split among the circuits, with some interpreting the statute the same way as the 11th Circuit, while others take the position advanced by the government.
The Issue and Question Before the Court
The relevant statute provides that :
Notwithstanding any other provision of law … and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review –
(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under [the adjustment of status provision, among others] …
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added).
(As an aside, there is an exception built into the statute which does allow federal courts to review constitutional claims or questions of law if appropriately raised.)
As a result, can a court review factual determinations that were made by an immigration judge as part of the discretionary granting (or denying) of relief under the adjustment of status provisions?
The Arguments
Three arguments were presented to the Court: by Patel, by the Government, and by an amicus curiae (friend of the court) appointed by SCOTUS to argue in support of the 11th Circuit’s position.
Patel’s argument was that the phrase “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” means the ultimate determination of the immigration judge whether or not to grant the relief requested, but does not include any of the underlying determinations that a judge may make to get to that ultimate decision. (Incidentally, this is the reasoning adopted by Justice Gorsuch in his dissent.)
The Government argued that a “judgment” is not just any decision, but rather refers exclusively to a decision that requires the use of discretion. The Government classified the factual findings in the case (i.e., the Immigration Judge’s conclusion on credibility) as non-discretionary, and therefore review of it would not be prohibited by the statute.
The Amicus argued that “judgment” means any authoritative decision, and encompasses “any and all decisions relating to the granting or denying of” discretionary relief, including factual findings.As a result, the federal courts lack jurisdiction to review an Immigration Judge’s findings of fact.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
In short, the Supreme Court sided with the Amicus and said no, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings.
In support of this conclusion, the majority of the Supreme Court reasoned that:
Amicus’ interpretation is the only one that fits the statute’s text and context because the word “any” is expansive, rather than restrictive, and means that the provision applies to judgments “of whatever kind” under Section 1255, not just discretionary judgments (as the Government argued) or last-in-time judgments (as Patel argued). Similarly, the word “regarding” has a “broadening effect, ensuring that the scope of a provision covers not only its subject but also matters relating to that subject.” As a result, the statute encompasses not just the granting of relief, but any judgment relating to the granting of that relief.
A separate subsection of the statute preserves review of constitutional claims and questions of law, a provision which was added by Congress following a different SCOTUS decision in 2001. Had Congress wanted to include a provision allowing federal courts to also have jurisdiction to review factual determinations, it could have included it when it added the provision allowing courts to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but it did not, a decision that must have been deliberate.
Patel’s and the Government’s arguments were “elaborate efforts to avoid the most natural meaning of the text.”
Patel’s and the Government’s concerns that prohibiting judicial review would have policy consequences beyond the immediate facts of this case were not issues currently pending before SCOTUS. Instead, the majority stated that “we inevitably swerve out of our lane when we put policy considerations in the driver’s seat. As we have emphasized many times before, policy concerns cannot trump the best interpretation of the statutory text.”
Parting Thoughts
This ruling leaves significant power in the hands of Immigration Judges, with little to no opportunity for remediation on appeal to challenge an Immigration Judge’s factual findings. With great power, then, comes great responsibility.
What if I'm in Deportation Proceedings?
It is important to remember that each is case different, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. As a result, it is strongly encouraged that you seek the advice of a licensed immigration attorney to help guide you through the process.
If you would like to schedule a free consultation with our office, click here to view our calendar.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only, and shall not be considered legal advice, or be used as a substitute for competent counsel. No attorney-client relationship exists without a signed agreement.
Commentaires