Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 410.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 233 (2010) 

249 

Opinion of the Court 

§ 1103(a)(10).  “[W]here  Congress  includes  particular  lan­
guage in one section of a statute but omits it in another sec­
tion of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress 
acts  intentionally  and  purposely  in  the  disparate  inclusion 
or  exclusion.”  Nken  v.  Holder,  556  U. S.  418,  430  (2009) 
(internal quotation marks omitted). 

B 

The  history  of  the  relevant  statutory  provisions  corrobo­
rates our  determination that  § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does  not pro­
scribe  judicial  review  of  denials  of  motions  to  reopen.  At­
torney  General  regulations  have  long  addressed  reopening 
requests.  See 6 Fed. Reg. 71–72 (1941).  The current regu­
lations,  adopted  in  1996,  61  Fed.  Reg.  18904–18906,  derive 
from  rules  published  in  1958,  see  23  Fed.  Reg.  9118–9119; 
Dada, 554 U. S., at 13. 

Enacting  IIRIRA  in  1996,  Congress  “transform[ed]  the 
motion to reopen from a regulatory procedure to a statutory 
form  of  relief  available  to  the  alien.”  Id.,  at  14.  IIRIRA 
largely  codiﬁed  the  Attorney  General’s  directions  on  ﬁling 
reopening motions.  See § 1229a(c)(7) (guaranteeing right to 
ﬁle one motion, prescribing contents, and setting deadlines). 
In  the  same  legislation,  Congress  amended  the  INA  ag­
gressively to expedite removal of aliens lacking a legal basis 
to  remain  in  the  United  States.  See  Reno  v.  American-
Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 475 (1999). 
Among  IIRIRA’s  several  proscriptions  of  judicial  review  is 
the  one  here  at  issue,  § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),  barring  review  of 
administrative  decisions  Congress  placed  within  the  Attor­
ney General’s discretion. 

Congress  thus  simultaneously  codiﬁed  the  process  for  ﬁl­
ing  motions  to  reopen  and  acted  to  bar  judicial  review  of  a 
number of executive decisions regarding removal.  But Con­
gress  did  not  codify  the  regulation  delegating  to  the  BIA 
discretion  to  grant  or  deny  motions  to  reopen.  See  8  CFR 
§ 1003.2(a)  (reopening  may  be  entertained  not  only  on  appli­