October Term 2021 · Docket 20-979

Can courts review an agency's finding that an immigrant is ineligible for status adjustment?

The dispute centers on whether a statutory bar blocks judicial review of an agency's initial finding that an immigrant lacks eligibility for status adjustment.

Official caption
Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Fleming argued that the government agrees the statutory bar does not block review of the agency's threshold determination of ineligibility.

    Mr. Raynor argued that the statute precludes review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under specific provisions.

    Ms. Meehan argued that an alternative meaning of judgment still bars review in this specific case.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of a statutory bar on judicial review. The bar targets decisions regarding the granting of relief. The core question is whether this bar covers the agency's threshold finding that an immigrant is ineligible for status adjustment.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 6, 2021.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants a court to review the agency's finding that he is ineligible for status adjustment.

The government wants the court to uphold the statutory bar that prevents review of that finding.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the statutory bar does not cover the agency's threshold determination of ineligibility.

The government argues the statutory bar precludes review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Barrett asked how the side that brought the case responds to the argument that the jurisdictional bar has little work to do if all preliminary determinations are reviewable.

Justice Kagan asked whether the phrase judgment regarding the granting of relief is a term of art in immigration statutes or has an ordinary meaning.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary of judicial oversight over immigration agency decisions. It determines whether courts can correct errors in the initial eligibility screening process. The outcome shapes the balance between agency discretion and individual rights in immigration law.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON