Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 398.0

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

237 

Opinion of the Court 

for  asylum.  An  Immigration  Judge  (IJ)  denied  the  motion, 
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained 
the  IJ’s  ruling,  and  the  U. S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Sev­
enth  Circuit  concluded  that  it  lacked  jurisdiction  to  review 
the  administrative  determination.  For  that  conclusion,  the 
court  relied  on  a  provision  added  to  the  Immigration  and 
Nationality  Act  (INA  or  Act),  66  Stat.  166,  8  U. S. C.  § 1101 
et  seq.,  by  the  Illegal  Immigration  Reform  and  Immigrant 
Responsibility  Act  of  1996  (IIRIRA),  110  Stat.  3009–546. 
The  provision  found  dispositive  by  the  Seventh  Circuit,  8 
U. S. C.  § 1252(a)(2)(B),  states  that  no  court  shall  have  juris­
diction  to  review  any  action  of  the  Attorney  General  “the 
authority  for  which  is  speciﬁed  under  this  subchapter  to  be 
in the discretion of the Attorney General,” § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) 
(emphasis added). 

We  granted  certiorari  to  decide  whether  the  proscription 
of  judicial  review  stated  in  § 1252(a)(2)(B)  applies  not  only 
to  Attorney  General  determinations  made  discretionary  by 
statute, but also to determinations declared discretionary by 
the  Attorney  General  himself  through  regulation.  We  hold 
that  the  key  words  “speciﬁed  under  this  subchapter”  refer 
to  statutory,  but  not  to  regulatory,  speciﬁcations.  We  so 
rule based on the longstanding exercise of judicial review of 
administrative  rulings  on  reopening  motions,  the  text  and 
context  of  § 1252(a)(2)(B),  and  the  history  of  the  relevant 
statutory provisions.  We take account, as well, of the “pre­
sumption  favoring  interpretations  of  statutes  [to]  allow  ju­
dicial  review  of  administrative  action.”  Reno  v.  Catholic 
Social  Services,  Inc.,  509  U. S.  43,  63–64  (1993)  (quoting 
McNary  v.  Haitian  Refugee  Center,  Inc.,  498  U. S.  479,  496 
(1991)).  Separation-of-powers  concerns,  moreover,  caution 
us  against  reading  legislation,  absent  clear  statement,  to 
place in executive hands authority to remove cases from the 
Judiciary’s domain.