Patel v. Garland
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Patel v. Garland and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Patel v. Garland.
In Patel v. Garland, the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review factual determinations in discretionary-relief proceedings under immigration law. The Court resolved a circuit conflict by interpreting the scope of 'judgment' in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to include any authoritative decision related to granting relief, thereby precluding judicial review of such factual findings. This decision reflects Congress's intent to limit procedural protections for discretionary relief.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Patel v. Garland.
The Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under § 1255 and related provisions.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Patel v. Garland. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Patel v. Garland
The case primarily concerns the scope of judicial review over factual determinations in discretionary-relief proceedings.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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).
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Patel v. Garland
The decision reflects Congress's choice to provide reduced procedural protection for discretionary relief, impacting the procedural due process rights of individuals.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)But the distinction simply reflects Congress' choice to provide reduced procedural protection for discretionary relief.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Patel v. Garland that support the summary and concepts above.
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under § 1255.
The word 'any' has an expansive meaning.
Policy concerns cannot trump the best interpretation of the statutory text.
