Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

amicus have three competing views. 

Amicus maintains that “judgment” means any authorita-
tive decision.  See Webster’s Third New International Dic-
tionary 1223 (1993) (“a formal utterance or pronouncing of 
an  authoritative  opinion  after  judging,”  or  “an  opinion  so 
pronounced”);  8  Oxford  English  Dictionary  294  (2d  ed. 
1989)  (“[t]he  pronouncing  of  a  deliberate  opinion  upon  a 
person  or  thing,  or  the  opinion  pronounced”).  Under  this 
broad  definition,  §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s  prohibition  “encom-
passes  any  and  all  decisions  relating  to  the  granting  or
denying” of discretionary relief.  Brief for Court-Appointed 
Amicus Curiae 22–23.  Factual findings fall within this cat-
egory, amicus says, so the courts lack jurisdiction to review 
them. 

The Government argues that, at least when used outside 
the context of a final judgment of a court, “judgment” does
not refer to just any decision.  According to the Government,
§1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s use of “judgment” refers exclusively to a
decision  that  requires  the  use  of  discretion.    Brief  for  Re-
spondent 16–18.  On this approach, some eligibility deter-
minations are reviewable and others are not.  For example, 
the determination that a noncitizen’s removal would not re-
sult  in  exceptional  and  extremely  unusual  hardship  for  a 
spouse, parent, or child involves discretion (which makes it
an unreviewable “judgment”), but the decision that an ap-
plicant has fewer than 10 years of continuous presence in
the  United  States  does  not  (which  makes  it  reviewable). 
See id., at 42 (citing 971 F. 3d, at 1296 (Martin, J., dissent-
ing));  but  see  Trejo  v.  Garland,  3  F. 4th  760  (CA5  2021) 
(concluding to the contrary that hardship is nondiscretion-
ary and so reviewable); Singh v. Rosen, 984 F. 3d 1142 (CA6 
2021) (same).  The Government classifies the factual find-
ings at issue in this case—the Immigration Judge’s conclu-
sions  that  Patel’s  testimony  was  not  credible  and  that  he
had  lied  on  the  form—as  nondiscretionary  and  therefore