Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 416.0

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

255 

Alito, J., concurring in judgment 

brief  allusion  to  motions  to  reopen  clearly  presupposed  that 
the Attorney General had in place a more general procedure 
for  reviewing  all  motions  to  reopen  removal  proceedings.” 
Brief  for  Court-Appointed  Amicus  Curiae  in  Support  of 
Judgment Below 41–42. 

Amicus’  argument  is  ingenious  but  ultimately  unpersua­
sive.  At  most,  8  U. S. C.  § 1252b  (1994  ed.)  may  be  read  as 
implicitly  authorizing  the  promulgation  of  a  regulation  giv­
ing  the  Attorney  General  the  discretion  to  reopen  certain 
deportation  orders  that  were  issued  in  absentia.  Petition­
er’s  second  motion  to  reopen,  however,  seeks  reopening  on 
grounds outside of § 1252b, and therefore 8 CFR § 1003.2, in­
sofar as it applies to petitioner’s case, was not issued pursu­
ant  to  Subchapter  II  and  does  not  implement  any  provision 
of that Subchapter. 

For  these  reasons,  this  case  can and  should  be  decided  on 
the narrow ground that, even if some regulations can render 
a decision of the Attorney General unreviewable, the regula­
tion at issue in this case does not have that effect.