Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–459 
_________________ 

WESCLEY FONSECA PEREIRA, PETITIONER v. 
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2018] 

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting. 
Although  this  case  presents  a  narrow  and  technical
issue  of  immigration  law,  the  Court’s  decision  implicates 
the  status  of  an  important,  frequently  invoked,  once  cele-
brated, and now increasingly maligned precedent, namely, 
Chevron  U. S. A.  Inc.  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Coun-
cil,  Inc.,  467  U. S.  837  (1984).    Under  that  decision,  if  a 
federal  statute  is  ambiguous  and  the  agency  that  is  au-
thorized  to  implement  it  offers  a  reasonable  interpreta-
tion,  then  a  court  is  supposed  to  accept  that  interpreta-
tion.  Here,  a  straightforward  application  of  Chevron 
requires us to accept the Government’s construction of the
provision at issue.  But the Court rejects the Government’s 
interpretation  in  favor  of  one  that  it  regards  as  the  best 
reading of the statute.  I can only conclude that the Court,
for whatever reason, is simply ignoring Chevron. 

I 
As  amended,  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act
generally  requires  the  Government  to  remove  nonperma-
nent  resident  aliens  who  overstay  the  terms  of  their  ad-
mission into this country.  See 8 U. S. C. §§1227(a)(1)(B)– 
(C).  But  under  certain  circumstances,  the  Government 
may  decide  to  cancel  their  removal  instead.    See  §1229b.
To  be  eligible  for  such  relief,  an  alien  must  demonstrate