Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 403

242 

KUCANA  v.  HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

Government agrees with Kucana that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does 
not  remove  federal-court  jurisdiction  to  review  the  denial 
of  a  reopening  motion.  We  appointed  Amanda  C.  Leiter 
to  brief  and  argue  the  case,  as  amicus  curiae,  in  support 
of  the  Seventh  Circuit’s  judgment.  557  U. S.  951  (2009). 
Ms. Leiter has ably discharged her assigned responsibilities. 

II 

The  motion  to  reopen  is  an  “important  safeguard”  in­
tended  “to  ensure  a  proper  and  lawful  disposition”  of  im­
migration  proceedings.  Dada  v.  Mukasey,  554  U. S.  1,  18 
(2008); cf. Stone v.  INS, 514 U. S. 386, 401 (1995) (analogizing 
motions  to  reconsider  immigration  decisions  to  motions  for 
relief  from  a  judgment  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Proce­
dure  60(b)).  Federal-court  review  of  administrative  deci­
sions  denying  motions  to  reopen  removal  proceedings  dates 
back  to  at  least  1916.  See  Dada,  554  U. S.,  at  12–13  (citing 
cases).  This Court has ultimately reviewed reopening deci­
sions on numerous occasions.  See, e. g., INS v.  Doherty, 502 
U. S. 314, 322–324 (1992); INS v. Abudu, 485 U. S. 94, 104–111 
(1988);  INS  v.  Rios-Pineda,  471  U. S.  444,  449–452  (1985); 
INS v.  Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 141–146 (1981) (per cu­
riam).  Mindful  of  the  Board’s  “broad  discretion”  in  such 
matters, however, courts have employed a deferential, 
abuse-of-discretion  standard  of  review.  See  Doherty,  502 
U. S., at 323 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The  Seventh  Circuit  held  that  Congress  removed  the  au­
thority long exercised by federal courts to review denials of 
an alien’s reopening request.  Congress did so, the Court of 
Appeals  said,  in  § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),  which  removes  jurisdic­
tion  to  review  a  decision  of  the  Attorney  General  “the  au­
thority  for  which  is  speciﬁed  under  this  subchapter  to  be  in 
the discretion of the Attorney General.”  All agree that the 
Attorney  General’s  regulation,  8  CFR  § 1003.2(a),  places 
“[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . within 
the discretion of the Board.”  But the statute does not cod­