Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 402.0

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

241 

Opinion of the Court 

enth  Circuit  created  a  split  between  itself  and  other  Courts 
of Appeals, all of them holding that denials of reopening mo­
tions are reviewable in court.7 

Judge Ripple concurred dubitante.  He acknowledged 
that  the  court  was  following  an earlier  decision,  Ali  v.  Gon­
zales,  502  F.  3d  659  (CA7  2007),8  but  “suggest[ed]  that,  had 
Congress intended to deprive th[e] court of jurisdiction . . . , 
it  would  have  done  so  explicitly,  as  it  did  in  8  U. S. C. 
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).”  533  F.  3d,  at  540.  The  court,  he  con­
cluded,  should  revisit  both  Ali  and  Kucana  and  “chart  a 
course . . . more closely adher[ing] to the statutory language 
chosen and enacted by Congress.”  533 F. 3d, at 540. 

Judge  Cudahy  dissented.  Given  the  absence  of  “speciﬁc 
[statutory]  language  entrusting  the  decision  on  a  motion  to 
reopen  to  the  discretion  of  the  Attorney  General,”  ibid.  (in­
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted),  he  saw  no  impediment  to 
the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  over  Kucana’s  petition.  In  sup­
port  of  his  position,  Judge  Cudahy  invoked  the  “strong  pre­
sumption  that  Congress  intends  judicial  review  of  adminis­
trative  action.”  Id.,  at  541  (quoting  Traynor  v.  Turnage, 
485  U. S.  535,  542  (1988)).  With  four  judges  dissenting,  the 
Seventh  Circuit  denied  Kucana’s  petition  for  rehearing  en 
banc.  See  533  F.  3d,  at  541–542  (dissenting  statement  of 
Ripple, J., joined by Rovner, Wood, and Williams, JJ.). 

We granted certiorari, 556 U. S. 1207 (2009), to resolve the 
Circuit  conﬂict.  As  it  did  before  the  Seventh  Circuit,  the 

ments  an  alien  must  fulﬁll  when  ﬁling  a  motion  to  reopen.”  Id.,  at  541 
(Cudahy, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).  See also infra, at 243, n. 9. 

7 See  Singh  v.  Mukasey,  536  F.  3d  149,  153–154  (CA2  2008);  Jahjaga  v. 
Attorney Gen. of United States, 512 F. 3d 80, 82 (CA3 2008); Zhao v.  Gon­
zales, 404 F. 3d 295, 303 (CA5 2005); Miah v.  Mukasey, 519 F. 3d 784, 789, 
n. 1 (CA8 2008); Medina-Morales v.  Ashcroft, 371 F. 3d 520, 528–529 (CA9 
2004); Infanzon v.  Ashcroft, 386 F. 3d 1359, 1361–1362 (CA10 2004). 

8 Ali  involved  a  decision,  made  discretionary  by  regulation,  denying  an 

alien’s request for a continuance.