Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · ¶37

Supporting this reading of § 1252(b)(4)(B) are IIRIRA's other amendments to the INA, which tend to restrict (rather than expand) review of immigration-related determinations in federal court. IIRIRA added, for instance, § 1252(a) (2)(D), which strips courts of jurisdiction to review certain types of removal orders entirely, restoring jurisdiction only for “constitutional claims or questions of law.” IIRIRA similarly limited the scope of review under § 1252(b)(4), even in the areas where courts retain their jurisdiction over removal orders. Not only does subparagraph (B) require deference toward “administrative findings of fact,” but subparagraphs (C) and (D) mandate that certain agency determinations are “conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law.” Against this backdrop, it would make little sense to interpret subparagraph (B) as expanding judicial review beyond the pre- IIRIRA…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.