Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 406.0

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

245 

Opinion of the Court 

2 

As the parties and amicus recognize, their diverse render­
ings  of  “under,”  standing  alone,  do  not  equip  us  to  resolve 
this case.  The word “under” is chameleon; it “has many dic­
tionary  deﬁnitions  and  must  draw  its  meaning  from  its  con­
text.”  Ardestani,  502  U. S.,  at  135.12  Examining,  in  statu­
tory  context,  the  provision  in  which  the  word  “under”  is 
embedded,  we  conclude  that  the  parties’  position  stands  on 
ﬁrmer ground. 

Section  1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the  provision  at  issue here,  is  far 
from  the  only  jurisdictional  limitation  in  IIRIRA.  See 
Dada,  554  U. S.,  at  16  (“In  reading  a  statute  we  must  not 
look merely to a particular clause, but consider in connection 
with  it  the  whole  statute.”  (internal  quotation  marks  omit­
ted));  Davis  v.  Michigan  Dept.  of  Treasury,  489  U. S.  803, 
809  (1989)  (“[T]he  words  of  a  statute  must  be  read  in  their 
context  and  with  a  view  to  their  place  in  the  overall 
statutory scheme.”).  Section 1252(a)(2), titled “Matters 
not  subject  to  judicial  review,”  lists  a  variety  of  agency  de­
terminations  the  federal  courts  lack  jurisdiction  to  review. 
Those  determinations  divide  into  three  categories.  The 
ﬁrst,  § 1252(a)(2)(A),  concerns  immigration  ofﬁcers’  deter­
minations whether aliens applying for admission are admissi­
ble.  Next  in  statutory  order  is  the  provision  before  us, 
§ 1252(a)(2)(B), which involves denials of discretionary relief. 

12 In an appendix to her brief, amicus lists hundreds of statutory provi­
sions in which regulations are described as being issued “under” a statute. 
See  App.  A  to  Brief  for  Court-Appointed  Amicus  Curiae  in  Support  of 
Judgment  Below.  In  every  one  of  those  examples,  Congress  expressly 
used the word “regulations.” 

At  oral  argument,  amicus  called  our  attention  to  three  instances  in 
which  Congress  used  the  words  “speciﬁed  under”  in  Title  8,  without  any 
reference to “regulations,” to encompass agency matters.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 
47–48,  54–55  (citing  §§ 1227(a)(1)(H),  1375a(a)(6),  and  1537(b)(1)).  These 
three  provisions  point  to  other  parts  of  the  Act,  which  in  turn  rely  on 
administrative  determinations.  Amicus’  research  underscores  the  point 
that context deﬁnes “under.”