Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Situ Kamu Wilkinson v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 21-3166 · judgment September 19, 2022
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General has discretion to cancel removal of non-permanent residents who satisfy four eligibility criteria, including "that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the applicant's immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Congress stripped courts of jurisdiction to review cancellation-of-removal determinations, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), but expressly preserved their jurisdiction to review "questions of law." Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). And as this Court has already held, this "statutory phrase 'questions of law' includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts"—that is, a "mixed question of law and fact." GuerreroLasprilla u. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068-69 (2020). The question presented is whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D), as three circuits have held, or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as the court below and two other circuits have concluded.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jaime Ann Santos
Goodwin Procter LLP
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Amicus briefs
3 merits
(3 supporting pet./neither)
Argument & decision
Argued November 28, 2023 — Jaime A. Santos · Colleen R. Sinzdak. Audio and transcript
Decided March 19, 2024. Opinion by Sotomayor.
Proceedings
- Apr 22 2024Judgment Issued.
- Mar 19 2024Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.
- Nov 28 2023Argued. For petitioner: Jaime A. Santos, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
- Nov 17 2023Reply of petitioner Situ Kamu Wilkinson filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 19 2023CIRCULATED
- Oct 19 2023Electronic record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- Oct 18 2023Brief of respondent Garland, Attorney General of the United States filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 13 2023Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- Oct 12 2023SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 28, 2023.
- Sep 08 2023Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
- Sep 05 2023Brief amici curiae of Organizations Assisting Survivors of Domestic Violence filed.
- Sep 05 2023Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office for Immigration Review Judges filed.
- Sep 05 2023Brief amicus curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.
- Aug 29 2023Brief of petitioner Situ Kamu Wilkinson filed.
- Aug 10 2023Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Situ Kamu Wilkinson.
- Jul 27 2023Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2023. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 18, 2023.
- Jul 24 2023Motion for an extension of time for the filing of the briefs on the merits filed.
- Jun 30 2023Petition GRANTED.
- Jun 30 2023As 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 29 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2023.
- Jun 20 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
- Jun 09 2023Rescheduled.
- May 30 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
- May 30 2023Reply of petitioner Situ Kamu Wilkinson filed. (Distributed)
- May 12 2023Brief of respondent Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General in response to the petition for certiorari filed.
- May 03 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 12, 2023.
- May 02 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 5, 2023 to May 12, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 17 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 5, 2023.
- Mar 16 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 23, 2023 to May 5, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 07 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 23, 2023.
- Feb 06 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 21, 2023 to March 23, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 17 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 21, 2023)
- Dec 12 2022Application (22A516) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 17, 2023.
- Dec 08 2022Application (22A516) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 18, 2022 to February 2, 2023, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Dec 08 2022Pursuant 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 filing system.