08-911 Kucana v. Holder

Listen to this article

Immigration
Reopening removal proceedings

8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)'s proscription of judicial review applies only to Attorney General determinations made discretionary by statute, not to determinations declared discretionary by the Attorney General himself through regulation.

The motion to reopen is an "important safeguard" intended "toensure a proper and lawful disposition" of immigration proceedings. Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, ___. Federal-court review of adminis-trative decisions denying motions to reopen removal proceedings dates back to at least 1916, with the courts employing a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. While the Attorney General's regulation in point, 8 CFR §1003.2(a), places the reopening decision within the BIA's discretion, the statute does not codify that prescription or otherwise "specif[y]" that such decisions are in the Attorney General's discretion.

533 F. 3d 534, reversed and remanded.

Local effect: The opinion reversed was issued by the Seventh Circuit.

08-911 Kucana v. Holder

Ginsburg, J., Alito, J., concurring

Full Text