Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

noted that Patel had falsely represented his manner of en-
try  into  the  United  States  on  an  application  for  asylum. 
Based on this evidence, the judge found that Patel’s testi-
mony was not credible and that he had intentionally repre-
sented that he was a citizen.  The judge accordingly denied
Patel’s  application  for  adjustment  of  status  and  ordered 
that  he  and  his  wife  be  removed  from  the  United  States. 
Patel appealed the decision to the BIA, which determined 
that the judge’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous
and dismissed the appeal. 

Patel petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review, arguing
that any  reasonable judge would  have been “compelled to
conclude” that his testimony was credible and that he had 
made  an  honest  mistake  on  the  form.    See  §1252(b)(4)(B) 
(“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 
reasonable  adjudicator  would  be  compelled  to  conclude  to 
the contrary”).  A panel of that court held that it lacked ju-
risdiction to consider Patel’s claim because federal law pro-
hibits judicial review of “any judgment regarding the grant-
ing  of  relief ”  under  §1255,  the  adjustment-of-status
provision.  §1252(a)(2)(B)(i).  And  the  factual  determina-
tions of which Patel sought review—whether he had testi-
fied credibly and whether he had subjectively intended to
misrepresent  himself  as  a  citizen—each  qualified,  in  the
panel’s view, as a “judgment regarding the granting of re-
lief.”  See Patel v. United States Atty. Gen., 917 F. 3d 1319, 
1327 (2019).

On  rehearing  en  banc,  both  Patel  and  the  Government 
argued that the panel had erred.  Patel contended that the 
bar on judicial review applied only to the ultimate decision 
to grant or deny adjustment of status—not to any subsidi-
ary decisions regarding an applicant’s eligibility to be con-
sidered for relief.  The Government argued that the bar ap-
plied not only to the ultimate decision to grant or deny relief 
but  also  to  any  discretionary  determinations  made  at  the