New Cert Petition on Reviewing Hardship Determinations in Immigration Appeals
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of factual and discretionary issues. But a savings clause preserves jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists to review mixed questions of law and fact—i.e., the application of the law to the facts.
Before Guerrero-Lasprilla, most (if not all) courts of appeals held that they lacked jurisdiction to review whether an immigration petitioner had shown the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” necessary for cancellation of removal. Guerrero-Lasprilla sparked some re-examination of the issue, and a circuit split quickly developed.
A new cert petition gives the Supreme Court the chance to resolve this split. The case is Wilkinson v. Garland, and the government’s response is due February 21, 2023.
Appellate Jurisdiction in Immigration Appeals
Appellate jurisdiction in immigration cases can get complicated. That’s because a series of provisions strip the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review certain issues while stating that they retain jurisdiction to address others. More specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) says (among other things) that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review the denial of relief under a variety of statutes as well as almost every other discretionary decision. But under § 1252(a)(2)(D), the courts of appeals retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.”
Among the statutes listed in § 1252(a)(2)(B) is 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). That provision authorizes the attorney general to cancel the removal of a petitioner who meets several criteria. Among those criteria, the petitioner must show that removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the petitioner’s family members who are citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Until recently, most courts of appeals read § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions to apply to hardship determinations. That is, they held that they lacked jurisdiction to review whether an immigration petitioner had shown sufficient hardship to be eligible for cancellation of removal. But in Guerrero-Lasprilla, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals can review the application of law to facts when hearing immigration appeals.
The Split on Hardship Determinations
Several appellate courts have re-examined their approach to hardship determinations in light of Guerrero-Lasprilla. And a few changed their tune. The Fourth and Sixth Circuits now hold that they can review the application of the hardship standard to settled facts. The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have suggested the same. But the Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits disagree.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will grant cert in Wilkinson to resolve this split.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Wilkinson v. Garland, No. 22-666, available at Westlaw.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Shaiban v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of an immigrant’s application for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), courts lack jurisdiction to review certain discretionary decisions in the immigration context. And the government has discretion when it comes to adjusting an asylee’s […]
Continue reading....
In Wilkinson v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals could review whether an immigration petitioner had shown the hardship necessary to be eligible for cancellation of removal. The majority thought that this holding was a straightforward extension of 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr. But several justices doubted that Congress intended for such a […]
Continue reading....
Since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, several courts of appeals have reexamined the scope of their jurisdiction in immigration appeals. Last week produced another example. In Hernandez v. Garland, the Sixth Circuit held that it could review “good moral character” determinations in immigration appeals, as those determinations involve a mixed question […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of decisions made in immigration proceedings. A savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. Until recently, most (if not all) courts of appeals broadly read the jurisdiction-stripping provisions to bar appellate review in a variety […]
Continue reading....
The appellate-jurisdiction provisions of immigration law can get complicated. The law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of issues. But a savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in last year’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....