On December 6, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Patel v. Garland, a case that involves the reviewability of certain “judgments” in cases involving applications for discretionary relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It is because of cases like this that Congress has limited courts’ jurisdiction over a wide variety of immigration decisions.
Facts of the Case. Patel, an Indian national, entered the United States illegally in 1992, and eventually moved to Georgia. His employer subsequently filed an I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers) on his behalf, and Patel was issued an employment authorization document while his application for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the INA was pending.
Thereafter, he applied for a replacement Georgia driver’s license in December 2008. In his application for a new license, he checked a box indicating that he was a United States citizen — which he was not.
As a consequence, his application for adjustment of status was denied and he was placed into removal proceedings in 2012, charged with removability for having entered the United States illegally under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA. In those proceedings, Patel conceded removability and again applied for adjustment of status — a discretionary form of relief.
To establish eligibility for adjustment, Patel was required to prove that he was otherwise admissible to the United States. ICE counsel argued that he was not admissible, however, because...
PORTLAND, Ore. - Two men face federal charges for allegedly defrauding Medicare, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Veterans Health Administration and private insurance companies out...