Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr

In Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, lawful permanent residents Pedro Guerrero-Lasprilla and Reyes Ovalles faced removal due to criminal convictions. They applied for cancellation of removal, which requires seven years of continuous residence. Immigration authorities applied the "stop-time" rule, finding their residence periods were interrupted by their offenses, rendering them ineligible. The petitioners sought judicial review, arguing the Board of Immigration Appeals misapplied the legal standard to the facts. The government moved to dismiss, claiming that 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review such mixed questions of law and fact. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated cases to resolve a circuit split over the scope of judicial review in immigration matters.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions do not bar judicial review of mixed questions of law and fact. The Court found that such questions require applying a legal standard to established facts, which falls outside the scope of barred "questions of fact." The judgments of the lower courts were reversed, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings.

Whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C) and (D), which limit judicial review of certain removal orders, preclude appellate courts from reviewing mixed questions of law and fact concerning a noncitizen's eligibility for cancellation of removal based on the continuous residence requirement.

The ruling clarified and preserved the scope of judicial oversight in immigration cases, ensuring that individuals facing removal can challenge administrative misapplications of law to their specific circumstances. It promoted procedural fairness and due process, preventing agencies from insulating critical legal determinations from court review.