Wilkinson v. Garland

This case concerns whether federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's determination that a noncitizen has committed a "particularly serious crime," which bars them from seeking withholding of removal. Sithembiso Wilkinson, a lawful permanent resident from South Africa, faced removal based on criminal convictions. An immigration judge deemed his offense particularly serious, a ruling the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld, thereby disqualifying him from deportation relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the extent of judicial review in such discretionary decisions.

The Supreme Court held 6-3 that federal courts possess jurisdiction to review the legal merits of an immigration judge's "particularly serious crime" determination, and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The central dispute is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal appellate courts of jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's discretionary "particularly serious crime" determination, or if courts may review the legal basis of such determination under the jurisdictional limitations imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This decision reinforced the ability of noncitizens in removal proceedings to obtain meaningful judicial review of critical mixed fact-law determinations affecting their eligibility for humanitarian relief. It clarified the jurisdictional scope of Article III courts over immigration adjudications, ensuring that arbitrary or legally erroneous administrative decisions regarding crime categorizations are subject to judicial oversight, thereby promoting due process and consistency in immigration law.