Kucana v. Holder

Kucana v. Holder
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 2009 Decided January 20, 2010
Full case name	Agron Kucana, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Docket no.	08-911
Citations	558 U.S. 233 ( more ) 130 S.Ct. 827
Holding
The statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the Attorney General immune to judicial review does not allow the Attorney General to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
Majority	Ginsberg, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concurrence	Alito
Laws applied
8 U.S.C.   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the attorney general immune to judicial review does not allow the attorney general to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations. ^{[1] [2]}

Statute

The case involved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act. The changes made by IIRIRA restricted judicial review of the Attorney General's actions "the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General".

Background

Agron Kucana applied for asylum in the late 1990s after overstaying a business visa. He did not go to the hearing, and was ordered removed. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) would not reopen his case when he told them he overslept. Instead of leaving the country, Kucana filed a motion to present new evidence for his asylum claim. His request was again denied. The Seventh Circuit refused, on jurisdictional grounds, contrary to other circuit courts , to hear Kucana's abuse of discretion claim. ^[3]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B) applies to determinations "declared discretionary by the Attorney General himself through regulation".

Supreme Court

Solicitor General Elena Kagan declined to defend the position of the Seventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to argue in support of the judgment below.

Decision

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous court, held that federal courts have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decisions on motions to reopen immigration cases. Separation of powers concerns caution "against reading legislation, absent clear statement, to place in executive hands authority to remove cases from the Judiciary's domain". ^{[4] : 1691} Analyzing the text and structure of the statute, the Court did not find a clear statement that would overcome the presumption.

The court reviewed the history of the "well-settled" presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action. ^{[4] : 1728} The statute does not allow the judiciary to review certain enumerated "substantive decisions... made by the Executive in the immigration context as a matter of grace, things that involve whether aliens can stay in the country or not." The motion to reopen, on the other hand, is an "adjunct procedure" that provides "a fair chance to have [claims] heard". ^[5]

See also

• Statutory construction

References

1. Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010).
2. "Scope of IIRIRA's jurisdictional bar". SCOTUSblog. January 20, 2010. Retrieved October 30, 2024.
3. Cade, Jason A. (February 2017). "Judging Immigration Equity: Deportation and Proportionality in the Supreme Court". UC Davis Law Review. 50 (3): 1077–1079.
4. Leiter, Amanda (2011). "Regulatory Hide and Seek: What Agencies Can (and Can't) Do to Limit Judicial Review". American University Law Review. 52 (4).
5. Howe, Amy (January 2010). "Scope of IIRIRA's jurisdictional bar". SCOTUSblog.

External links

• Text of Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233(2010) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia