Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

Opinion of the Court 

eligibility stage.  And in the Government’s view, the Immi-
gration  Judge’s  factual  findings  were  “nondiscretionary” 
determinations to which the bar did not apply.

A  majority  of  the  full  Eleventh  Circuit  agreed  with  the 
panel  decision  and  held  that  all  factual  determinations
made as part of considering a request for discretionary re-
lief fall within §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s prohibition on judicial re-
view.  Patel  v.  United  States  Atty.  Gen.,  971  F. 3d  1258, 
1272–1273  (2020).  In  reaching  this  conclusion,  the  Elev-
enth Circuit deepened a split among the courts of appeals 
as to the scope of §1252(a)(2)(B)(i).1 

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  the  conflict.  594  U. S. 
___ (2021).  Because the Government has continued to take 
the position that §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not prohibit review 
of the fact determinations at issue, we invited Taylor A. R.
Meehan to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in 
support of the judgment below.  594 U. S. ___ (2021).  She 
has ably discharged her responsibilities. 

II 
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of jurisdiction to re-
view “any judgment regarding the granting of relief ” under 
§1255.  The outcome of this case largely turns on the scope 
of the word “judgment,” an issue on which the parties and 

—————— 

1 The Fourth and Seventh Circuits appear to interpret §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)
the way that the Eleventh Circuit does.  See Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F. 3d 
475, 480 (CA4 2006); Cevilla v. Gonzales, 446 F. 3d 658, 660–661 (CA7 
2006).  Other Courts of Appeals distinguish between discretionary and 
nondiscretionary judgments but do so in a way that seems to preclude all
review of fact questions.  See Castro v. Holder, 727 F. 3d 125, 128–129 
(CA1 2013); Rosario v. Holder, 627 F. 3d 58, 61 (CA2 2010); Arambula-
Medina  v.  Holder,  572  F. 3d  824,  828  (CA10  2009).    The  remainder  to 
weigh in on the question take the Government’s position.  See Mendez-
Moranchel  v.  Ashcroft,  338  F. 3d  176,  178–179  (CA3  2003);  Garcia-
Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F. 3d 657, 661 (CA5 2003); Santana-Albarran 
v. Ashcroft, 393 F. 3d 699, 703 (CA6 2005); Ortiz-Cornejo v. Gonzales, 400 
F. 3d 610, 612 (CA8 2005); Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F. 3d 936, 943–946 
(CA9 2013).