Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 51

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

13 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

to  create  DACA.  As  with  lawful  presence,  Congress  has
provided a plethora of methods by which aliens may seek
relief  from  removal.  For  instance,  both  permanent  and 
temporary  residents  can  seek  cancellation  of  removal  if 
they  meet  certain  residency  requirements  and  have  not
committed  certain  crimes.    §§1229b(a)–(b).    And  certain 
nonpermanent residents may have their status adjusted to 
permanent 
proceedings.
§1229b(b)(2).  Aliens can apply for asylum or withholding of 
removal during removal proceedings unless they have com-
mitted certain crimes.  §§1158, 1231(b)(3).  Applicants for 
certain  nonimmigrant  visas  may  be  granted  a  stay  of  re-
moval until the visa application is adjudicated.  §1227(d).
And, aliens may voluntarily depart rather than be subject
to an order of removal.  §1229c.

residence 

during 

these 

In sum, like lawful presence, Congress has provided for 
relief from removal in specific and complex ways.  This nu-
anced detail indicates that Congress has provided the full
panoply of methods it thinks should be available for an al-
ien to seek relief from removal, leaving no discretion to DHS
to provide additional programmatic forms of relief.7 

3 
Finally,  DHS  could  not  appeal  to  general  grants  of  au-
thority,  such  as  the  Secretary’s  ability  to  “perform  such
other  acts  as  he  deems  necessary  for  carrying  out  his  au-
thority under the provisions of this chapter,” §1103(a)(3), or 
to “[e]stablis[h] national immigration enforcement policies
and  priorities,”  6  U. S. C.  §202(5).    See  also  8  U. S. C. 
§1103(g)(2).  Because we must interpret the statutes “as a 
—————— 

7 It is uncontested that deferred action frequently occurs on a case-by-
case basis, often justified on the grounds that the agency lacks resources 
to remove all removable aliens.  Even assuming that these ad hoc exer-
cises  of  discretion  are  permissible,  however,  we  have  stated  that  “[a]n
agency confronting resource constraints may change its own conduct, but 
it cannot change the law.”  Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 
302, 327 (2014).