Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

C 
Patel and the Government object that our interpretation
of  §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)  would  arbitrarily  prohibit  review  of 
some factual determinations made in the discretionary-re-
lief context that would be reviewable if made elsewhere in 
removal proceedings.  In this case, for example, the ques-
tion whether Patel intended to falsely claim to be a citizen 
on his driver’s license application relates to whether he is
statutorily  inadmissible,  which  is  both  an  obstacle  to  dis-
cretionary  relief  and  an  independent  ground  for  removal.
Presumably  because  Patel  openly  acknowledged  that  he
was removable for entering the country illegally, the Gov-
ernment did not premise his removal on the contested claim 
that  he  had  intentionally  misrepresented  his  citizenship.
But if the Government had taken that route, the Immigra-
tion Judge’s determinations would have been reviewable in
the ordinary course.

That  distinction  is  not  arbitrary.    It  reflects  Congress’ 
choice to provide reduced procedural protection for discre-
tionary  relief,  the  granting  of  which  is  “ ‘not  a  matter  of 
right under any circumstances, but rather is in all cases a 
matter of grace.’ ”  St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 308.  That reduced 
protection is reflected in the burden of proof too: The Gov-
ernment bears the burden of proving removability by clear 
and convincing evidence, while an applicant bears the bur-
den of establishing eligibility for discretionary relief.  Com-
pare §1229a(c)(3)(A) with §1229a(c)(4)(A).  For both judicial 
review and the burden of proof, the context in which a fact 
is found explains the difference in protection afforded. 

Patel and the Government also briefly suggest that inter-
preting §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) as we do will have the unintended
consequence  of  precluding  all  review  of  USCIS  denials  of 
discretionary  relief.  Those  decisions  are  made  outside  of 
the  removal  context,  and  subparagraph  (D)  preserves  re-
view of legal and constitutional questions only when raised 
in a petition for review of a final order of removal.  If the