The question
Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D) to review an immigration judge's application of the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard when deciding a noncitizen's statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal.
Wilkinson v. Garland
What the Court decided
Reversed. Federal courts of appeals may review an immigration judge's application of the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard to a given set of facts when deciding a noncitizen's eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Third Circuit was wrong to hold it lacked jurisdiction. Applying that hardship standard to established facts is a mixed question of law and fact, and Section 1252(a)(2)(D) restores jurisdiction to review "questions of law," which includes such mixed questions.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The application of the statutory exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts is a mixed question of law and fact. Under Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Section 1252(a)(2)(D) restores jurisdiction over questions of law, which includes mixed questions, so the Third Circuit had jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination even though the underlying inquiry is fact-intensive.
Concurring in the judgment
Jackson, writing alone
Agreed with the outcome that the Third Circuit had jurisdiction to review the determination, but did not join the Court's reasoning.
Dissenting
Roberts, writing alone
Disagreed with the Court's conclusion that jurisdiction existed to review the IJ's hardship determination.
Dissenting
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas
Argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's application of the hardship standard, contending the determination fell within the statute's bar on reviewing judgments regarding the granting of discretionary relief.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to review the IJ's hardship determination.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1252(a)(2)(D) restores jurisdiction to review questions of law, which under Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr includes mixed questions of law and fact.
Source: syllabus, Held
Applying the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to a given set of facts presents a mixed question of law and fact.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Alito filed a dissenting opinion joined by Roberts and Thomas, and Roberts filed a separate dissent; Jackson concurred in the judgment.
Source: syllabus, lineup