Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

Opinion of the Court 

outside the jurisdictional bar.2 

Patel  agrees  with  the  Government  that  “judgment”  im-
plies an exercise of discretion, but unlike the Government,
he would not sift through eligibility determinations to clas-
sify them as discretionary or nondiscretionary.  Instead, Pa-
tel reads the phrase “regarding the granting of relief ” to fo-
cus the jurisdictional bar narrowly on a single discretionary 
judgment:  the  immigration  judge’s  decision  whether  to 
grant relief to an applicant eligible to receive it.  Everything 
else,  Patel  says,  is  reviewable.    JUSTICE  GORSUCH  adopts
Patel’s approach, rejecting the Government’s interpretation
as well as amicus’.  See post, at 8 (dissenting opinion). 

A 
is  the  only  one  that 

Amicus’ 

interpretation 

fits 
§1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s text and context.  The provision does not 
restrict itself to certain kinds of decisions.  Rather, it pro-
hibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of re-
lief under §1255 and the other enumerated provisions.  As 
this Court has “repeatedly explained,” “ ‘ “the word ‘any’ has 
an  expansive  meaning.” ’ ”  Babb  v.  Wilkie,  589  U. S.  ___, 
___, n. 2 (2020) (slip op., at 5, n. 2); see also Webster’s Third 
New International Dictionary, at 97 (defining “any” as “one 
or  some  indiscriminately  of  whatever  kind”).    Here,  “any”
means  that  the  provision  applies  to  judgments  “ ‘of  what-
ever kind’ ” under §1255, not just discretionary judgments
or the last-in-time judgment.  See United States v. Gonza-
les, 520 U. S. 1, 5 (1997).  Similarly, the use of “regarding” 

—————— 

2 Prior to 2001, the Government took the position that amicus now de-
fends.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 52–53.  It adopted its current understanding as a
matter of constitutional avoidance following this Court’s decision in INS 
v.  St.  Cyr,  533  U. S.  289  (2001).    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  53–54.  Though  the 
Government says that Congress’ subsequent amendments to other parts 
of §1252, see infra, at 9, “ameliorat[ed]  the constitutional concerns,” it 
has not reverted to its original interpretation of §1252(a)(2)(B)(i), Tr. of 
Oral Arg. 54.