Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 29

8 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

step two where the INA expressly vests the Attorney Gen-
eral with substantial discretion.  See St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 
307  (noting  the  traditional  and  longstanding  “distinction
between eligibility for discretionary relief, on the one hand, 
and the favorable exercise of discretion, on the other hand” 
(emphasis added)).

All of which leads us back to Mr. Patel’s case.  Before the 
Eleventh Circuit, Mr.  Patel sought to challenge the BIA’s 
step-one  determination  that  he  was  statutorily  ineligible
for adjustment of status, arguing that no reasonable adju-
dicator could have found the facts as the agency did.  The 
INA  expressly  authorizes  courts  to  hear  claims  like  his. 
8 U. S. C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).  Unprompted, however, the Elev-
enth Circuit held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) effectively undoes 
this arrangement.  That court’s self-directed legal analysis 
was mistaken.  Subparagraph (B)(i) only deprives courts of
jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s step-two dis-
cretionary  decision  to  grant  or  deny  relief,  not  the  BIA’s 
step-one judgments regarding whether an individual is eli-
gible to be considered for such relief. 

B 
The majority, of course, offers a different view.  Following
the Eleventh Circuit’s lead, the majority contends that sub-
paragraph  (B)(i)’s  phrase  “any  judgment  regarding  the
granting of relief under § 1255” sweeps more broadly.  On 
its account, the statute denies courts the power to correct 
all agency decisions with respect to an adjustment-of-status
application under § 1255—both the agency’s step-one eligi-
bility  decisions  and  its  step-two  discretionary  decisions. 
Ante,  at  8–9.    As  a  result,  no  court  may  correct  even  the 
agency’s most egregious factual mistakes about an individ-
ual’s statutory eligibility for relief.  It is a novel reading of 
a  25-year-old  statute.  One  at  odds  with  background  law 
permitting judicial review.  And one even the government 
disavows.