Wilkinson v. Garland

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 30 Jun 2023

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General has discretion to cancel removal of non-permanent residents who satisfy four eligibility criteria, including "that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the applicant's immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Congress stripped courts of jurisdiction to review cancellation-of-removal determinations, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), but expressly preserved their jurisdiction to review "questions of law." Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). And as this Court has already held, this "statutory phrase 'questions of law' includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts"—that is, a "mixed question of law and fact." Guerrero- Lasprilla u. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068-69 (2020). The question presented is whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D), as three circuits have held, or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as the court below and two other circuits have concluded.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether certain non-citizens facing deportation could challenge their removal orders based on claims that they would face persecution or torture if returned to their home countries. The case involved interpreting provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) concerning judicial review limitations for individuals ordered removed due to criminal convictions. The majority held that while Congress has restricted judicial review in these cases, there remains a narrow avenue for legal challenges when constitutional issues are at stake, particularly those involving potential violations of international human rights obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This decision reinforced existing protections against refoulement but emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements set forth by immigration law.