Wilkinson v. Garland
Overview
Overview
Wilkinson v. Garland (2024) held 5-4 that courts of appeals must apply de novo review, not deferential review, to an immigration judge's determination that a petitioner has shown 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to a qualifying relative, which is a statutory prerequisite for cancellation of removal. The Court held the hardship standard is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo judicial review.
The Facts
Facts
Situ Kamu Wilkinson, a Trinidad and Tobago national who had lived in the United States for decades, sought cancellation of removal, which requires showing that removal would cause 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. The immigration judge denied his application. Wilkinson appealed, but the Third Circuit held it could not review the hardship determination because it was a factual question within agency discretion. The Supreme Court reversed.
The Issue
Issue
Whether courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's determination that a petitioner failed to show 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to a qualifying relative as required for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
The Rules
Rule
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review 'any judgment regarding the granting of relief under' cancellation of removal provisions. The Court distinguishes between discretionary denials (unreviewable) and determinations of whether statutory prerequisites are met (reviewable questions of law or mixed law-fact). Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr (2020) established that mixed questions of law and fact are reviewable.
The Application
Analysis
The Court applied the jurisdictional statute by drawing a critical distinction: while courts cannot review an agency's discretionary choice to grant relief, they can review determinations of whether statutory prerequisites are met. Wilkinson's hardship determination exemplifies this reviewable question, as it requires courts to assess whether the immigration judge correctly understood the legal standard of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" and properly applied it to the facts concerning his qualifying relative. A mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review. This framework permits appellate oversight of the gateway statutory question while preserving agency discretion over the ultimate relief determination.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Decided March 19, 2024. The 5-4 ruling (Sotomayor writing, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson) held that the hardship determination is a reviewable mixed question subject to de novo review. The decision opens a significant avenue for immigration petitioners to challenge hardship determinations in federal court, affecting a substantial subset of cancellation of removal cases.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support