Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 409.0

248 

KUCANA  v.  HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

They  include  waivers  of  inadmissibility  based  on  certain 
criminal  offenses,  § 1182(h),  or  based  on  fraud  or  misrepre­
sentation,  § 1182(i);  cancellation  of  removal,  § 1229b;  permis­
sion for voluntary departure, § 1229c; and adjustment of sta­
tus, § 1255. 

Other decisions speciﬁed by statute “to be in the discretion 
of the Attorney General,” and therefore shielded from court 
oversight by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), are of a like kind.  See, e. g., 
§ 1157(c)(1)  (discretion  to  admit  refugees  “determined  to  be 
of  special  humanitarian  concern  to  the  United  States”); 
§ 1181(b)  (discretion  to  waive  requirement  of  documentation 
for  readmission);  § 1182(a)(3)(D)(iii)  (discretion  to  waive,  in 
certain  cases,  inadmissibility  of  aliens  who  have  afﬁliated 
with  a  totalitarian  party).  Decisions  on  reopening  motions 
made  discretionary  by  regulation,  in  contrast,  are  adjunct 
rulings: The motion to reopen is a procedural device serving 
to ensure “that aliens [a]re getting a fair chance to have their 
claims  heard.”  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  17.  A  court  decision  re­
versing  the  denial  of  a  motion  to  reopen  does  not  direct  the 
Executive to afford the alien substantive relief; ordinarily, it 
touches  and  concerns  only  the  question  whether  the  alien’s 
claims have been accorded a reasonable hearing. 

If Congress wanted the jurisdictional bar to encompass de­
cisions  speciﬁed  as  discretionary  by  regulation  along  with 
those  made  discretionary  by  statute,  moreover,  Congress 
could easily have said so.  In other provisions enacted simul­
taneously  with  § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),  Congress  expressed  pre­
cisely  that  meaning.  See  IIRIRA  § 213,  110  Stat.  3009–572 
(“immigration  beneﬁts  pursuant  to  this  Act,  or  the  regula­
tions  promulgated  thereunder ”),  codiﬁed  at  8  U. S. C. 
§ 1324c(e)(2);  IIRIRA  § 372,  110  Stat.  3009–646  (“any  of  the 
powers,  privileges,  or  duties  conferred  or  imposed  by  this 
Act or regulations issued thereunder”), codiﬁed at 8 U. S. C. 

statute, but provide judicial review for judgments that are just as lawfully 
discretionary because the Attorney General is given the authority to make 
them discretionary and has done so?”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 9; see id., at 13–14.