Patel v. Garland

Summary

The Supreme Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U.S.C. §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i), affirming the Eleventh Circuit's en banc judgment. Reading 'any judgment regarding the granting of relief' for its plain meaning, the Court concluded that 'any' and 'regarding' sweep in every judgment relating to discretionary relief—including the Immigration Judge's credibility and subjective-intent findings underlying Patel's denial of adjustment of status—and that the statute is too clear to invoke the presumption of reviewability. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented, arguing the bar covers only the step-two discretionary grant of relief, not step-one eligibility determinations resting on factual findings.