No. 22-666October Term 2023Decided Mar 19, 2024
Situ Kamu Wilkinson, Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have the jurisdiction to review an immigration agency's determination that a noncitizen's removal would not cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their family, classifying this as a mixed question of law and fact rather than a purely discretionary judgment.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Mar 19, 2024
- What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have the jurisdiction to review an immigration agency's determination that a noncitizen's removal would not cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their family, classifying this as a mixed question of law and fact rather than a purely discretionary judgment.
Question presented
Is an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or instead a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit / Decision released Mar 19, 2024
- Area
Administrative Law, Immigration
Documents
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary-source trail available.
- Note
- Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Mar 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology