Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

10 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

has “a broadening effect.”  Ibid.  It even suggests that fail-
ing to give the term that effect would be to read it “out of 
the statute entirely.”  Ante, at 14.  But in truth, the word 
can have either a broadening or narrowing effect depending 
on context.  Cf. Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. 528, 537 
(2015)  (plurality  opinion)  (“In  law  as  in  life  . . .  the  same 
words, placed in different contexts, sometimes mean differ-
ent  things”).  And  in  subparagraph  (B)(i),  “regarding”  is 
much  more  likely  to  serve  a  narrowing  function,  focusing
our  attention  on  a  specific  subset  of  judgments—namely,
those  step-two  discretionary  judgments  “regarding  the 
granting of relief.”

To appreciate the point, consider a hypothetical.  Imagine
I said:  “Please bring me any book regarding the history of 
the American West from that shelf of history books.”  In this 
sentence, the phrase “regarding the history of the American
West” does not broaden the referenced set.  Instead, it di-
rects you to a narrow subset of books:  those regarding the 
history  of  the  American  West.    Any  other  interpretation
misses the point and leaves me with a pile of unwanted vol-
umes. 

What is true of this hypothetical is true of subparagraph
(B)(i).  The  phrase “regarding the  granting of relief ” does 
not expand the set—again, the sentence already speaks of 
“any judgment . . . under section . . . 1255.”  Instead, it func-
tions as “limiting language” that narrows the kind of judg-
ments  under  § 1255  the  command  means  to  cover.    iTech 
U. S.,  Inc.  v.  Renaud,  5  F. 4th  59,  65  (CADC  2021).    And 
here that means limiting our attention to the agency’s step-
two decision, the only place where it can issue a “judgment 
regarding the granting of relief.”  Any other reading renders 
the statute a garble.1 
—————— 

1 Perhaps sensing that its textual arguments cannot bear the weight it
seeks to place on them, the majority suggests that, right or wrong, exist-
ing precedent commands its reading, pointing us to Guerrero-Lasprilla 
v. Barr, 589 U. S. ___ (2020), and Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U. S. ___ (2020).