Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

paragraph  (D),  and  regardless  of  whether  the  judg-
ment, decision, or action is made in removal proceed-
ings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review—

“(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief un-
der  section  1182(h),  1182(i),  1229b,  1229c,  or  1255  of 
this title.” 

This bar has an important qualification: “Nothing in sub-
paragraph (B) . . . shall be construed as precluding review
of  constitutional  claims  or  questions  of  law  raised  upon  a 
petition  for  review  filed  with  an  appropriate  court  of  ap-
peals in accordance with this section.”  §1252(a)(2)(D).  No-
tably,  this  qualification  does  not  preserve  review  of  ques-
tions of fact. 

B 
Pankajkumar Patel and his wife Jyotsnaben entered the
United States illegally in the 1990s.  In 2007, Patel applied 
to  United  States  Citizenship  and  Immigration  Services
(USCIS) (a component of the Department of Homeland Se-
curity (DHS)) for adjustment of status under §1255(i).  See 
8  CFR  §245.2(a)(1)  (giving  USCIS  authority  over  applica-
tions for adjustment of status made outside of removal pro-
ceedings).  If granted, this adjustment would have excused 
Patel’s illegal entry and made him a lawful permanent res-
ident.  (Patel’s wife, the other petitioner in this case, applied 
for derivative adjustment of status based on Patel’s appli-
cation.)  While  his  request  to  USCIS  was  pending,  Patel
also applied for a Georgia driver’s license.  On that applica-
tion, he checked a box falsely stating that he was a United 
States citizen. 

USCIS denied Patel’s application for adjustment of sta-
tus because of that misrepresentation.  One of the eligibility 
requirements for adjustment is that the noncitizen be stat-
utorily  admissible  for  permanent  residence.  8  U. S. C. 
§1255(i)(2)(A).    USCIS  decided  that  Patel  failed  to  satisfy