Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

PATEL ET AL. v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–979.  Argued December 6, 2021—Decided May 16, 2022 

In 2007, Pankajkumar Patel, who had entered the United States illegally
with his wife Jyotsnaben in the 1990s, applied to United States Citi-
zenship  and  Immigration  Services  (USCIS)  for  discretionary  adjust-
ment of status under 8 U. S. C. §1255, which would have made Patel 
and his wife lawful permanent residents.  Because USCIS was aware 
that Patel had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver’s license 
application falsely stating that he was a United States citizen, it de-
nied Patel’s application for failure to satisfy the threshold requirement 
that the noncitizen be statutorily admissible for permanent residence.
§1255(i)(2)(A); see also §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (rendering inadmissible a 
noncitizen “who falsely represents . . . himself or herself to be a citizen 
of the United States for any purpose or benefit under” state or federal 
law).

Years later, the Government initiated removal proceedings against
Patel and his wife due to their illegal entry.  Patel sought relief from
removal by renewing his adjustment of status request.  Patel argued 
before an Immigration Judge that he had mistakenly checked the “cit-
izen” box on the state application and thus lacked the subjective intent 
necessary to violate the federal statute.  The Immigration Judge disa-
greed, denied Patel’s application for adjustment of status, and ordered 
that  Patel  and  his  wife  be  removed  from  the  country.   The  Board  of 
Immigration Appeals dismissed Patel’s appeal. 

Patel  petitioned  the  Eleventh  Circuit  for review,  where  a  panel  of 
that court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim.  Fed-
eral  law  prohibits  judicial  review  of  “any  judgment  regarding  the 
granting  of  relief”  under  §1255. 
  But  see 
§1252(a)(2)(D) (exception where the judgment concerns “constitutional 
claims”  or  “questions  of  law”).    The  panel  reasoned  that  the  factual 

  §1252(a)(2)(B)(i).