Patel v. Garland

Patel v. Garland
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 2021 Decided May 16, 2022
Full case name	Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Docket no.	20-979
Citations	596 U.S. 328 (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Majority	Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh
Dissent	Gorsuch, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the jurisdiction of federal courts over immigration appeals.^[1]

Pankajkumar Patel entered the United States illegally in February 1992. In August 2007, he applied for adjustment of status to receive a green card. In December 2008, Patel sought to renew his Georgia driver's license and checked a box on the application specifying that he was a United States citizen. An immigration judge later denied his application for adjustment of status on that basis, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.

Patel asserted that, because he would be eligible for a driver's license regardless of his citizenship status, his mistake on the form should not matter when it comes to his immigration application. He subsequently petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for review of the BIA's decision, but a panel of the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review factual determinations.^[2] 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which provides that courts have no jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (adjustment of status). The factual determinations about the credibility of Patel's testimony and the intentionality of the misrepresentation of citizenship were each "a judgment regarding the granting of relief", the court of appeals said. Both Patel and the government disagreed with this reading of the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the immigration code.

The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc, and again reached the same outcome, this time in an 11–4 vote. Patel filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.^[3] Certiorari was granted in the case on June 28, 2021.

On May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit in a 5–4 decision, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the dissent.

As both Patel and the government disagreed with the Eleventh Circuit's decision, the court appointed Taylor Meehan as amicus curiae to defend the judgment below. Oral arguments were held on December 6, 2021.

Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett ruled that federal courts have only a limited role in the broad system that governs the removal of noncitizens—and that this role does not include reviewing the facts behind a denial of relief. The term “judgment” in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) refers to "any" (per the statute) authoritative decision relating to the granting or denying of discretionary relief, and that "plainly includes factual findings", the Court held.^[4] The Court noted that Congress chose to give reduced procedural protections for discretionary relief.^[5]

The Court said it's decision was based on its prior holdings in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Nasrallah v. Barr. Specifically, in Guerrero-Lasprilla, the Court held that the jurisdiction-stripping provision did not extend to examining how a legal standard applies to undisputed facts, while noting that "appeals of factual determinations" would not be reviewable.^[5] Nasrallah v. Barr said non-citizens "may not bring a factual challenge to orders denying discretionary relief, including...adjustment of status".^[6] The Court rejected a theory that Kucana v. Holder, which limited the jurisdiction-stripping provision to determinations "made discretionary by statute", implied that review of nondiscretionary decisions is allowed.^[7]

Justice Gorsuch's dissent was joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor:^[7]

Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individual’s removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it. No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants.

He argued that the term "regarding" narrowed to the discretionary decision to grant relief, analogizing that in the phrase "any book regarding the history of the American West", the term "regarding" would narrow the phrase "any book" to the subset of books "regarding the history of the American West". He further argued the plain text of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not bar all judicial review. The jurisdictional bar of subparagraph (B)(i) applies to five forms of relief, not only §1255 (adjustment of status), but also inadmissibility waivers, cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, with different threshold requirements, so the bar was probably intended to apply only to the discretionary decision to grant relief.^[4][5]

Scholars have raised concerns about due process and broader flaws in the immigration system highlighted by the case, in which Patel, who had lived in the United States for nearly 30 years, faced deportation without judicial review simply for checking the wrong box on a driver’s license application.^[5][8]

After Patel v. Garland circuit courts began hearing cases about whether hardship determinations in cancellation of removal cases are a mixed question of law and fact, and so reviewable under Guerrero-Lasprilla, reaching conflicting results.^[6]

In May 2025, in Xia v. Bondi, No. 24-2304 (2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relied on the Patel decision and affirmed the district court's decision, which dismissed Xia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Xia had lived unlawfully in the United States for over 30 years.^[9]

• Text of Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)