Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

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

5 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

vote of 2 to 1. 

Mr. Patel next petitioned for review in the Eleventh Cir-
cuit.  There, he argued that the BIA’s finding that he inten-
tionally sought to deceive state officials was wholly unrea-
sonable given the evidence before the agency.  In response, 
the  federal  government  agreed  that  the  Eleventh  Circuit
had the power to hear Mr. Patel’s case but asked the court
to affirm the BIA’s decision on the merits.  Instead, a panel 
of the Eleventh Circuit charted its own path, holding that
it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual findings no 
matter how wrong they might be.  See Patel v. United States 
Atty. Gen., 917 F. 3d 1319, 1324 (2019).  Eventually, the full
court  agreed  to  rehear  the  case  and,  by  a  vote  of  9  to  5,
reached  the  same  conclusion.  See  Patel  v.  United  States 
Atty.  Gen.,  971  F. 3d  1258  (2020).    In  doing  so,  the  court 
acknowledged  that  it  had  to  overrule  “numerous”  circuit 
precedents  holding  that  it  possessed  the  power  to  review
cases like Mr. Patel’s.  Id., at 1262.  It acknowledged, too, 
that  its  new  ruling  conflicted  with  the  holdings  of  most 
other courts of appeals.  Id., at 1277, and n. 22. 

II 

As it comes to us, this  case poses the question:  Does a 
federal court have statutory authority to review and correct
a  BIA  decision  holding  an  individual  ineligible  for  relief 
when that decision rests on a glaring factual error?  Today, 
the majority insists the answer is no.  It does not matter if 
the  BIA  and  immigration  judge  in  Mr.  Patel’s  case  erred 
badly  when  they  found  he  harbored  an  intent  to  deceive
state officials.  It does not matter if the BIA declares other 
individuals ineligible for relief based on even more obvious 
factual errors.  On the majority’s telling, courts are power-
less to correct bureaucratic mistakes like these no matter 
how grave they may be.

It is an eye-catching conclusion.  Normally in this coun-
try, federal courts shoulder the responsibility of reviewing