Deportation relief after conviction
Judulang v. Holder
In brief
The Supreme Court rejected the immigration board’s rule and sent Judulang’s case back, but it did not award him relief from deportation.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · December 12, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ rule for deciding whether Joel Judulang could seek discretionary relief from deportation under a former immigration law was unreasonable under the law governing federal agencies (arbitrary and capricious).
- Who it affects
- The Board’s policy for deciding whether lawful permanent residents in deportation cases could seek former Section 212(c) relief was invalid; the Court did not itself grant Judulang relief.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent Judulang’s case back to the lower court (remanded).
Joel Judulang was a lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty to an offense that made him deportable. The Board of Immigration Appeals used its comparable-grounds rule to reject his request for review.
Former Section 212(c) let some lawful permanent residents ask for discretionary relief from deportation.
Question presented
Can a lawful permanent resident who was convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders him deportable and excludable under differently phrased statutory subsections be prevented from seeking discretionary relief from removal under former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
The BIA’s policy for applying §212(c) in deportation cases is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). 499, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court found the Board’s policy unreasonable under federal law governing agency decisions, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” It did not decide whether Judulang should receive relief.
The vote
- Majority author
- Elena Kagan
What's next
Judulang’s case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling did not decide whether he qualifies for discretionary relief.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Judulang
Opinion added: Judulang
More questions
- What did the Board’s comparable-grounds rule compare?
- It compared the statutory reason for deportation with grounds for excluding someone from the country to decide whether former Section 212(c) relief was available.
- What law did the Court use to assess the Board’s policy?
- The Court assessed it under the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing agency decisions.
- Did the Court decide whether Judulang could receive relief?
- No. It invalidated the Board’s policy but did not decide whether Judulang qualified for relief.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.