Patel v. Garland

Last updated

Patel v. Garland
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 6, 2021
Decided May 16, 2022
Full case namePankajkumar S. Patel, et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Docket no. 20-979
Citations596 U.S. ___ ( 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
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh
DissentGorsuch, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

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

Contents

Background

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 the 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 consider the claim. Both Patel and the government disagreed with this reading of the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the immigration code, and the court granted rehearing en banc. The Eleventh Circuit again reached the same outcome, this time in an 11–4 vote. Patel filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. [1]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on June 28, 2021. As both Patel and the government disagreed with the Eleventh Circuit's decision, the court appointed Taylor Meehan of Consovoy McCarthy to defend the judgment below. Oral arguments were held on December 6, 2021. On May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit in a 5–4 decision, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority, and Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the dissent.

Related Research Articles

United States courts of appeals Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into thirteen circuits: eleven circuits, numbered First through Eleventh, that cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders; the District of Columbia Circuit, which covers only Washington, D.C.; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statue but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit original decision: the difference was merely "jurisdictional", and Torres still qualified for the accelerated deportation process described under the INA.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bears the burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute limiting multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction.

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether and, if so, when federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court held that the "look through" approach established by the Court's decision in Vaden v. Discover Bank "does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA."

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, in which the Court unanimously held that cargo loaders and ramp supervisors employed at airports are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' habeas corpus petitions.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

References

  1. Howe, Amy (June 28, 2021). "Justices won't intervene in dispute over transgender rights and bathrooms". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved May 23, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)