Plain-English summary
Holds federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings tied to discretionary immigration relief
In Patel v. Garland (No. 20-979), the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings made as part of decisions about discretionary immigration relief listed in 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision denying review of an individual’s claim that he was not inadmissible for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.
Why this matters
This decision narrows the ability of federal courts to review factual questions that arise when immigration agencies decide whether to grant discretionary relief (such as adjustment of status). It limits judicial oversight of certain factual findings by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, making agency decisions on some discretionary relief effectively final on factual issues.
Who may feel it
- Immigration applicants seeking discretionary relief (e.g., adjustment of status)
- Noncitizens found inadmissible based on factual determinations
- Immigration attorneys and advocates
- Federal courts handling immigration-related petitions
Key questions
- Whether federal courts may review factual determinations that are part of decisions to grant or deny discretionary immigration relief listed in 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i).