Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 405.0

244 

KUCANA  v.  HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

.

instructs: “The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen 
. is within the  discretion  of  the  Board,  subject  to  the 
.
restrictions  of  this  section.  The  Board  has  discretion  to 
deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made 
out a prima facie case for relief.”  8 CFR § 1003.2(a).  Nev­
ertheless, in defense of the Seventh Circuit’s judgment, ami­
cus  urges  that  regulations  sufﬁce  to  trigger  8  U. S. C. 
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s proscription of judicial review. 

The  jurisdiction-stripping  provision,  amicus  reminds,  re­
fers  to  “authority  .  .  .  speciﬁed  under  this  subchapter.”  As 
she  reads  that  formulation,  the  word  “under”  is  key.  She 
comprehends  “under”  to  mean  “pursuant  to,”  “subordinate 
to,”  “below  or  lower  than,”  “inferior  . . . in  rank  or  impor­
tance,”  “by  reason  of  the  authority  of.”  Brief  for  Court-
Appointed  Amicus  Curiae  in  Support  of  Judgment  Below 
15, 17 (citing, inter alia, Florida Dept. of Revenue v.  Picca­
dilly  Cafeterias,  Inc.,  554  U. S.  33,  39  (2008);  Ardestani  v. 
INS,  502  U. S.  129,  135  (1991)).  Administrative  regulations 
count  for  § 1252(a)(2)(B)  purposes,  she  urges,  because  they 
are issued “pursuant to,” and are measures “subordinate to,” 
the legislation they serve to implement.  The parties, on the 
other  hand,  read  “speciﬁed  under  this  subchapter”  to  mean 
“speciﬁed in,” or “speciﬁed by,” the subchapter.11 

On  the  reading  amicus  advances,  § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)  would 
bar judicial review of any decision that an executive regula­
tion places within the BIA’s discretion, including the decision 
to  deny  a  motion  to  reopen.  On  the  parties’  reading,  how­
ever,  § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)  precludes  judicial  review  only  when 
the  statute itself  speciﬁes the  discretionary character  of the 
Attorney General’s authority. 

11 Deﬁning “under,” as used in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), to mean “pursuant to,” 
or “subordinate to,” and not “in” or “by,” the Attorney General observes, 
would give rise to “a fatal anomaly”: “Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) would apply 
only to regulations promulgated ‘under the authority of ’ the relevant sub-
chapter,  and  not  to  speciﬁcations  of  discretion  in  the  subchapter  itself.” 
Reply Brief for Respondent 6.