Podcast appearances and mentions of Patel V Garland

On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Patel v. Garland, holding that Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings enumerated under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). The judgment of the 11th circuit was affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Joining today to discuss this decision and its implications is Kelly Holt, associate in the Issue and Appeals practice at Jones Day.

In 2007, Pankajkumar Patel, who had entered the United States illegally with his wife Jyotsnaben in the 1990s, applied to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for discretionary adjustment of status under 8 U. S. C. §1255, which would have made Patel and his wife lawful permanent residents. Because USCIS was aware that Patel had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver's license application falsely stating that he was a United States citizen, it denied Patel's application for failure to satisfy the threshold requirement that the noncitizen be statutorily admissible for permanent residence. §1255(i)(2)(A); see also §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (rendering inadmissible a noncitizen “who falsely represents . . . himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under” state or federal law). Years later, the Government initiated removal proceedings against Patel and his wife due to their illegal entry. Patel sought relief from removal by renewing his adjustment of status request. Patel argued before an Immigration Judge that he had mistakenly checked the “citizen” box on the state application and thus lacked the subjective intent necessary to violate the federal statute. The Immigration Judge disagreed, denied Patel's application for adjustment of status, and ordered that Patel and his wife be removed from the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Patel's appeal. Patel petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review, where a panel of that court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim. Federal law prohibits judicial review of “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” under §1255. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But see §1252(a)(2)(D) (exception where the judgment concerns “constitutional claims” or “questions of law”). The panel reasoned that the factual determinations of which Patel sought review—whether he had testified credibly and whether he had subjectively intended to misrepresent himself as a citizen—each qualified as an unreviewable judgment. On rehearing, the en banc court agreed with the panel. This Court granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict as to the scope of §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17. Credit: Justia US Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-979/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.Date                  Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 15 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2021)Jan 15 2021 | Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filng system.Feb 11 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Feb 12 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 24, 2021.Mar 17 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 24, 2021 to April 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Mar 18 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 23, 2021.Apr 15 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 23, 2021 to May 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Apr 16 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 17, 2021.May 17 2021 | Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed.May 28 2021 | Reply of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jun 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.Jun 21 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.Jun 28 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.Jun 28 2021 | As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.Jun 29 2021 | Taylor A.R. Meehan, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.Jul 13 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al.Jul 20 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jul 28 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and the petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2021. The time to file the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is extended to and including October 19, 2021.Aug 23 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Aug 31 2021 | Brief of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed.Aug 31 2021 | Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General in support filed.Sep 03 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office for Immigration Review Judges filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Immigration Litigation Alliance filed.Sep 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The American Immigration Council, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 6, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.Sep 28 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer, also the record has been received and has been electronically filed.Oct 19 2021 | Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.Oct 26 2021 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General.Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDNov 08 2021 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.Nov 15 2021 | Record received from the 11th Circuit. The record is Sealed and filed electronically.Nov 18 2021 | Reply of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)Nov 18 2021 | Reply of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

December 6, 2021 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.

Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 12/06/21 | Docket #: 20-979

A case in which the Court will decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.

Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.