The Supreme Court on May 16, in a closely watched immigration case, held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review questions of fact arising from discretionary-relief in immigration proceedings.
In other words, even if an applicant feels that an error was made in denying their application, they have almost no ability to request judicial review.
From a legal standpoint, critics feel that the majority’s argument in Patel v. Garland fails to consider basic principles of statutory construction. From a policy standpoint, critics feel that this restriction on judicial review will have severe consequences for immigrants in removal proceedings.
In light of current labor shortages, however, Patel could also have economic consequences. Whether it’s labor shortages, supply-chain interruptions, or the “Great Resignation,” immigrants are vital to the solution. Unfortunately, immigrants are already traumatized by Trump-era policies and historic backlogs.
Now, as a result of Patel, the perception that one factual error could result in a denial of a green card application with no legal recourse will only deepen that trauma.
If this...
Social media was flooded with claims that a girl had been assaulted by alleged Hindu and RSS supporters in the presence of Delhi Police personnel, who supposedly remained silent spectators. The cl...