In the case of Agron Kucana v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, 2009, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding motions to reopen removal proceedings against non-citizens. The court held that a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which bars judicial review of discretionary decisions made by the attorney general related to immigration cases, does not apply to motions for reopening such cases because they are procedural rather than substantive matters. This decision overturned a previous ruling by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and clarified that Congress did not intend for this bar on judicial review to extend so broadly as it had been interpreted previously.

In the dissenting opinion for Agron Kucana v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Justice Alito argued that the majority misinterpreted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). He contended that Congress intended to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over discretionary decisions made by immigration officials, including motions to reopen removal proceedings like Kucana's case. According to him, this interpretation aligns with IIRIRA’s purpose of streamlining deportation procedures and reducing judicial intervention in immigration matters. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on a rule presuming congressional intent to preserve judicial review unless clearly stated otherwise; instead arguing for an approach based on statutory text rather than assumptions about legislative intent.