Wilkinson v. Garland
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Wilkinson 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 Wilkinson v. Garland.
In Wilkinson v. Garland, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Third Circuit had jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's determination of 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' in a cancellation of removal case. The Court found that this determination is a mixed question of law and fact, making it reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D). The decision reversed the Third Circuit's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Wilkinson v. Garland.
The Court held that the Third Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination in this case.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Wilkinson v. Garland. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Wilkinson v. Garland
The case involves the Court determining whether the Third Circuit had jurisdiction to review the IJ's decision, which is a question of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court granted certiorari to determine whether the IJ's 'exceptional and extremely unusual' hardship determination is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D) or whether that determination is discretionary and therefore unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Wilkinson v. Garland
The case addresses whether the statutory interpretation allows for judicial review of the hardship determination, implicating procedural fairness in the immigration process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Wilkinson argues that § 1252(a)(2)(D) restores jurisdiction in this case because the threshold question whether a noncitizen is statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal requires a court to assess whether an IJ correctly applied the statutory standard to a given set of facts.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Wilkinson v. Garland that support the summary and concepts above.
The Third Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination in this case.
Guerrero-Lasprilla compels the conclusion that the application of the statutory 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard to a given set of facts presents a mixed question of law and fact.
