Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 17-10636 · judgment August 19, 2020
Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below.
Questions presented
Petitioner Pankajkumar S. Patel checked a box on a Georgia driver's license application erroneously identifying himself as a U.S. citizen, even though Mr. Patel was eligible for a license regardless of his citizenship. When Mr. Patel later sought to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident, a divided panel of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied him relief, holding that he is inadmissible because he "falsely represented" himself as a U.S. citizen for a benefit under state law. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6)(C)(ii). Rejecting the government's own position and that of nearly every other circuit, the en banc Eleventh Circuit, by a 9-5 vote, held that it lacked jurisdiction to review threshold eligibility findings for five major categories of discretionary relief from removal, such as whether Mr. Patel is inadmissible for mistakenly representing himself as a U.S. citizen. The Eleventh Circuit separately held, contrary to a precedential BIA decision, that Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) renders noncitizens inadmissible even if their misrepresentation of citizenship is immaterial to the government benefit sought. The questions presented are:
-
Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.
-
Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), which renders a noncitizen inadmissible for "falsely represent[ing]'' oneself to be a U.S. citizen for a government benefit, applies to immaterial misrepresentations. GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION ORDER OF JUNE 29, 2021 TAYLOR A.R. MEEHAN, ESQUIRE, OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Ira Jay Kurzban
Kurzban, Kurzban, et al.
For respondent
Taylor Ann Rausch Meehan
Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
5 merits
(5 respondent)
Argument & decision
Argued December 6, 2021 — Mark C. Fleming · Austin L. Raynor · Taylor A.R. Meehan. Audio and transcript
Decided May 16, 2022. Opinion by Barrett.
Proceedings
- Jun 17 2022JUDGMENT ISSUED
- May 16 2022Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
- Dec 06 2021Argued. For petitioners: Mark C. Fleming, Boston, Mass. For respondent in support: Austin L. Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Taylor A.R. Meehan, Chicago, Ill.
- Nov 18 2021Reply of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 18 2021Reply of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 15 2021Record received from the 11th Circuit. The record is Sealed and filed electronically.
- Nov 08 2021Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
- Oct 29 2021CIRCULATED
- Oct 26 2021Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General.
- Oct 19 2021Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.
- Sep 28 2021The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer, also the record has been received and has been electronically filed.
- Sep 27 2021Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.
- Sep 20 2021SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 6, 2021.
- Sep 07 2021Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.
- Sep 07 2021Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office for Immigration Review Judges filed.
- Sep 07 2021Brief amici curiae of National Immigration Litigation Alliance filed.
- Sep 07 2021Brief amici curiae of The American Immigration Council, et al. filed.
- Sep 03 2021Brief amicus curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.
- Aug 31 2021Brief of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed.
- Aug 31 2021Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General in support filed.
- Aug 23 2021Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
- Jul 28 2021Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and the petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2021. The time to file the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is extended to and including October 19, 2021.
- Jul 20 2021Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
- Jul 13 2021Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al.
- Jun 29 2021Taylor A.R. Meehan, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.
- Jun 28 2021Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
- Jun 28 2021As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.
- Jun 21 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
- Jun 01 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
- May 28 2021Reply of petitioners Pankajkumar S. Patel, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- May 17 2021Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed.
- Apr 16 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 17, 2021.
- Apr 15 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 23, 2021 to May 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 18 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 23, 2021.
- Mar 17 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 24, 2021 to April 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 12 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 24, 2021.
- Feb 11 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 15 2021
- Jan 15 2021Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filng system.