December 3, 2021
Patel v. Garland An important question was raised as to whether the Federal Court can review the decision of an agency within the Ministry of Justice that non-citizens are not eligible for green cards. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Monday.
Congress established a procedure called “status adjustment” so that immigrants who actually live in the United States can change their status to that of lawful permanent residents (ie, green card holders) without leaving the United States. The government’s decision to approve or reject a person’s adjustment has a profound impact on the individual. In the 2021 fiscal year, 104,000 non-citizens Adjusted their status. Holding a green card allows a person to work, go to school, and build a house in the United States. Many U.S. green card holders eventually apply for and obtain U.S. citizenship.
The identity adjustment designed by Congress requires a person to first meet the precise qualified Including the requirements to prove that they have legally entered the United States, belong to the eligible legal category (ie family, employment), can obtain a visa, and are “acceptable.” Congress has also established “forgiveness” clauses for these eligibility requirements, and provides adjustment channels for those who enter the country without “checking”, provided they can prove that they have submitted a submission to the government on or before April 30, 2001. Visa application or labor certification, actually in the United States, will pay a fine of $1,000.
Congress has established a second step for all adjustment of status applications, requiring a person to prove that they are eligible to make adjustments when exercising their discretion. The two-step design of this adjustment-meeting eligibility requirements plus discretion partly reflects the design of many other forms of immigration relief. Both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have the statutory power to adjust status based on whether a person is in an expulsion (formally called an “expulsion”) process. When a person is placed in the deportation process, the adjustment of status serves as a “defense” for deportation.
This case involves Pankajkumar Patel, an Indian citizen who has lived in the United States for nearly 30 years. Patel is married to Jyotsnaben Patel (the co-applicant in this case), and they have three children together. Patel first applied for an adjustment of status under the forgiveness clause, and based on his work in the United States, because he entered without inspection. He said he incorrectly marked “yes” when answering the question “Are you a U.S. citizen?” in the Georgia driver’s license application. The Department of Homeland Security discovered that he falsely claimed that he was a U.S. citizen in the application and rejected his adjustment.
In 2012, Patel was placed in deportation proceedings before an immigration judge. The immigration charges filed by the Department of Homeland Security against Patel appeared in the United States without entry or parole. Patel updated his adjustment application as a defense for deportation. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently argued that Patel was not eligible to adjust his status because he lied to be a U.S. citizen. The immigration judge agreed, although Patel testified that he incorrectly marked the U.S. citizen box. The immigration judge never decides on the second step-discretion. Patel appealed this decision to another department of the Justice Department called the Immigration Appeals Board, and BIA agreed with the immigration judge.
In 1996, Congress created 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)This prohibits the Federal Court from reviewing the denial of discretionary relief, especially the five different types of immigration relief for “any judgment on granting relief”, including adjustment of status. In 2005, Congress added 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(D), clarifying that nothing in item (B)(i) should be “construed as excluding any constitutional requirements or requests made in a petition. Review of legal issues”. Review” in the Federal Court of Appeals.
Patel challenged BIA’s denial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The circuit court concluded that item (B)(i) prohibits the court from reviewing Patel’s case. The court held that (B)(i) prohibits all judicial review of adjustment of status, except for legal or constitutional issues raised under section 1252(a)(2)(D). Patel sought a review from the Supreme Court.
The core of this case is whether the federal court can review issues related to Patel’s legal qualifications to adjust status. Specifically, the Supreme Court will consider “[w]8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) retains the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to review non-discretionary decisions that non-citizens are not eligible for certain types of discretionary relief. Patel and the federal government agreed that the case involved a non-discretionary decision to adjust the status of Patel. They also agreed that the 11th Circuit made a mistake and further believed that the 1996 law allowed non-discretionary decisions. Conduct a review, including the results of the fact finding. The court appointed attorney Taylor Mehan to defend the 11th Circuit’s decision.
governmental briefly Begin with the words used in section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and agree that it prohibits the review of “any judgment” about the grant or refusal of relief. By looking at how the term “judgment” is used in other parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the court’s presumption that “using a given term in the entire statute to mean the same thing”, the government believes that item (B) (i) ) Should be understood as referring only to discretionary decisions. The government pointed out that the title of this statutory section “Refusal to Discretion” provides clues to Congress’ intent. In this application, the government will allow judicial review of factual issues in Patel’s case, that is, whether he intends to misrepresent his citizenship in his driver’s license application. The government rejected the argument of the 11th Circuit that if subparagraph (B)(i) had allowed review of non-pleasure decisions, then the adjacent clause in section 1252(a)(2)(D) of 2005 would be Unnecessary or redundant.
Relying on the text and structure of the decree, Patel debate The most natural interpretation of Article 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is that the “judgment concerning the grant of relief” is only relevant to the second step discretion. They argue that the decision on whether a person meets the threshold eligibility requirements for adjustment is different from the discretionary decision attached to the statutory text of “judgment”, “grant” or “judgment on granting relief.” Patel believes that, at least, (B)(i) is best applied only to the second step discretion. Although the term “judgment” may have different meanings on its own, Patel believes that in the context “it is best to refer to the discretion to ultimately grant such relief.”Patel also discussed the established principles of statutory interpretation and cited Kukana v. Holder with Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Emphasizing the principles and presumptions of judicial review.Finally, quote INS v Cardoza-Fonseca, Patel proposed the principle of interpreting ambiguity in laws that favor non-citizens.
Meehan, in support of the 11th Circuit’s decision, Interpreter 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) means that no court has the power to examine whether Patel has misrepresented citizenship, because this is a matter of fact and is different from a legal issue. She questioned Patel and the government’s claim that non-discretionary decisions are censorable, “If so, then every potential factual issue can be reviewed for every refusal of discretionary relief. Congress is likely to rename the part”[m]Artes
no always Accept judicial review. “
How to resolve this legal issue will affect the fate of Patel and his wife, as well as thousands of cases involving two-step discretionary relief.Thirty-five former immigration judges and BIA members said in a statement About Friends of the Court If the court finds that the immigration law excludes all judicial review, “the impact of such rulings will be huge. Every year, tens of thousands of cases involve discretionary relief requests under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) For example, between January 2017 and September 2020, immigration judges decided on more than 94,000 such applications.” As one article revealed About Friends of the Court According to the National Immigration Litigation Coalition, the use of the interpretation of the 11th Circuit may also enable thousands of people to seek adjustment of status outside of the deportation process without any form of review of their applications being denied.
How the court interprets the 1996 law or jurisdictional restrictions may also affect future statutory interpretations, especially whether unclear regulations will be interpreted as beneficial to non-citizens.Immigration scholar debate Failure to explain the ambiguity in Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) in favor of non-citizens will “have a serious negative impact on the applicant and other non-citizens, and they will not be able to even consider whether the impact is even appropriate. Relief.” Finally, the outcome of this case may also raise new questions about the separation of powers and the meaning of due process.