Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

Opinion of the Court 

jurisdictional bar is broad and subparagraph (D) is inappli-
cable, Patel and the Government say, USCIS decisions will 
be wholly insulated from judicial review.

The reviewability of such decisions is not before us, and 
we do not decide it.  But it is possible that Congress did, in 
fact,  intend  to  close  that  door.3    The  post-St.  Cyr  amend-
ments  expressly  extended  the  jurisdictional  bar  to  judg-
ments  made  outside  of  removal  proceedings  at  the  same 
time that they preserved review of legal and constitutional 
See 
questions  made  within  removal  proceedings. 
§§1252(a)(2)(B), (D).  And foreclosing judicial review unless
and until removal proceedings are initiated would be con-
sistent with Congress’ choice to reduce procedural protec-
tions  in  the  context  of  discretionary  relief.  See  Lee  v. 
USCIS, 592 F. 3d 612, 620 (CA4 2010) (“To the extent Con-
gress decided to permit judicial review of a constitutional or 
legal issue bearing upon the denial of adjustment of status,
it intended for the issue to be raised to the court of appeals 
during  removal  proceedings”).    So  it  would  be  difficult  to  
maintain that this consequence conflicts with the statutory
structure,  and  neither  Patel  nor  the  Government  goes  so 
far.  Instead, they urge us to interpret §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to 
avoid the risk of this result.  Yet we inevitably swerve out 
of our lane when we put policy considerations in the driver’s 
seat.  As  we  have  emphasized  many  times  before,  policy 
concerns cannot trump the best interpretation of the statu-
tory text.  See, e.g., Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U. S. ___, 
___ (2021) (slip op., at 15); Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345, 357 

—————— 

3 The  parties  do  not  address  the  independent  question  whether  a 
USCIS denial of adjustment of status made before the initiation of re-
moval  proceedings  satisfies  threshold  finality  and  exhaustion  require-
ments for review.  There appears to be disagreement on this question in 
the courts of appeals.  Compare Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F. 3d 512, 517–518 
(CA5 2000); McBrearty v. Perryman, 212 F. 3d 985, 987 (CA7 2000), with 
Pinho  v.  Gonzales,  432  F. 3d  193,  200–202  (CA3  2005);  Cabaccang  v. 
USCIS, 627 F. 3d 1313, 1317 (CA9 2010).