Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Wilkinson v. Garland

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Wilkinson v. Garland
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: November 28, 2023
Decided: March 19, 2024
Outcome
reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito

Wilkinson v. Garland is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 19, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 28, 2023.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "[W]hether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D), as three circuits have held, or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as the court below and two other circuits have concluded."[1]
  • The outcome: In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, holding that the Third Circuit erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s decision in Wilkinson’s case.[2]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 19, 2024: In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, holding that the Third Circuit erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s decision in Wilkinson’s case.[2]
    • November 28, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • June 30, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 17, 2023: Situ Kamu Wilkinson, the petitioner, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • September 19, 2022: The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed Wilkinson's petition in part and denied the petition in part.

    Background

    Situ Wilkinson is originally from Trinidad and Tobago. He overstayed his tourist visa and fathered a son who is a U.S. citizen. Wilkinson financially supports his son. In 2019, Wilkinson was arrested for selling crack cocaine and faced deportation proceedings. Although Wilkinson admitted that he was deportable, he sought cancellation or withholding of removal.[3]

    According to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, in order to qualify for cancellation, Wilkinson needed to show that his deportation would cause an extremely unusual hardship to his son. For withholding of removal, he needed to prove that if he returned to Trinidad, his life or freedom would be threatened because he belonged to a particular social group.[3] The immigration judge found that he could not prove either of those claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the judge's decision.[4][3]

    Wilkinson appealed the board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part Wilkinson’s petition. The court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to review Wilkinson’s request for cancellation because this was a Discretionary decision.[3] Therefore, they dismissed this part of his petition. The court also determined that Wilkinson lacked proof that his group was socially distinct, and dismissed this part of his petition.[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ [W]hether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D), as three circuits have held, or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as the court below and two other circuits have concluded.

    [5]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, holding that the Third Circuit erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s decision in Wilkinson’s case. The court determined that an immigration judge’s discretionary decision that a set of established facts does not satisfy the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship criteria in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) for determining eligibility for cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, it is reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D)’s jurisdiction for questions of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court.[2]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[2]

    “ Today’s decision announces nothing more remarkable than the fact that this Court meant what it said in Guerrero-Lasprilla: Mixed questions of law and fact, even when they are primarily factual, fall within the statutory definition of ‘questions of law’ in §1252(a)(2)(D) and are therefore reviewable. That holding does not render §1252(a)(2)’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions meaningless. As this Court said in Guerrero-Lasprilla and reiterated in Patel, those provisions still operate to exclude ‘agency fact-finding from review.’ Guerrero-Lasprilla, 589 U. S., at 234–235; Patel, 596 U. S., at 339 (‘[J]udicial review of factfinding is unavailable’). The facts underlying any determination on cancellation of removal therefore remain unreviewable. For instance, an IJ’s factfinding on credibility, the seriousness of a family member’s medical condition, or the level of financial support a noncitizen currently provides remain unreviewable. Only the question whether those established facts satisfy the statutory eligibility standard is subject to judicial review.4 Because this mixed question is primarily factual, that review is deferential.[5] ”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[2]

    “

    I concur in today’s judgment with the understanding that the jurisdiction-stripping provision is not ‘meaningless.’ Ante, at 15. When reviewing denials of discretionary relief, courts should respect the choice of Congress, reflecting the will of the People, to limit judicial interference. Courts cannot review the facts underlying a hardship determination in the cancellation-of-removal context, and they should carefully distinguish between application of the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ legal standard, such as it is, and those unreviewable facts.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Chief Justice John Roberts

    Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Roberts wrote:[2]

    “

    I joined the opinion of the Court in ‘’Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr’’, 589 U. S. 221 (2020), and continue to believe that it was correctly decided. I agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s dissent in this case, however, that the Court errs in reading the language in ‘’Guerrero-Lasprilla’’ ‘as broadly as possible,’ indeed ‘to the outer limits of its possible reach.’ Post, at 6, 5. Nothing in ‘’Guerrero-Lasprilla’’ requires such a reading, and I accordingly join JUSTICE ALITO’s dissent.[5]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts

    Justice Samuel Alito

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas.

    In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote:[2]

    “

    In the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009–546, Congress sought to control illegal immigration and streamline the procedures for removing illegal aliens who had been convicted of criminal offenses. A key provision of the Act is 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which provides that ‘no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting’ of certain forms of discretionary relief. After IIRIRA’s enactment, this Court flagged a ‘substantial constitutional questio[n]’ that would arise if federal habeas courts were stripped of jurisdiction to review ‘pure question[s] of law.’ ‘’INS v. St. Cyr’’, 533 U. S. 289, 300 (2001). Congress responded by enacting an amendment clarifying that §1252(a)(2)(B) did not ‘preclud[e] review of constitutional claims or questions of law.’ §1252(a)(2)(D).[5]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 United States Supreme Court, "22-666 WILKINSON V. GARLAND," accessed June 30, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 U.S. Supreme Court, "Situ Kamu Wilkinson, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General'", Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit," accessed March 20, 2024
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Casetext, "Wilkinson v. Attorney Gen.," accessed December 18, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Oyez, "Wilkinson v. Garland," accessed December 18, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 28, 2023
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 28, 2023
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wilkinson_v._Garland&oldid=9442156"