Wilkinson v. Garland

Sitambra Wilkinson, a Jamaican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in Pennsylvania. An immigration judge determined that this conviction constituted a "particularly serious crime," making her ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed her petition for review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the decision was discretionary. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, ruling that whether a conviction qualifies as a particularly serious crime is a mixed question of law and fact subject to judicial review. The Court held that applying a statutory standard to established facts is a legal question, not an unreviewable discretionary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The U.S. Supreme Court held 6-3 that the "particularly serious crime" determination is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable by federal courts. The judgment of the Third Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.

Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that a noncitizen's conviction constitutes a "particularly serious crime" barring eligibility for cancellation of removal, or whether such determination is an unreviewable discretionary decision.

The decision clarified the scope of judicial review in immigration cases, ensuring that lawful permanent residents can challenge critical eligibility determinations in federal court rather than being subject to unreviewable agency discretion. It affects how immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals apply the "particularly serious crime" bar and reinforces due process protections for noncitizens facing removal.