Kucana v. Holder
| Kucana v. Holder | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided January 20, 2010 | |
| Full case name | Kucana v. Holder |
| Citations | 558 U.S. 233 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the Attorney General immune to judicial review does not allow the Attorney General to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsberg, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the attorney general immune to judicial review does not allow the attorney general to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations.[1][2]
Statute
The case involved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act. The changes made by IIRIRA restricted judicial review of the Attorney General's actions "the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General".
Background
Kucana applied to reopen his removal case so he could present new evidence for his claim of asylum. He was denied by an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Decision
Then Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the case for the United States government. She argued that the jurisdictional bar of IIRIRA applied for an agency regulation that delegated, to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the authority to deny a motion to reopen a removal proceeding. The Court disagreed, and ruled that the IIRIRA's statutory language barred judicial review only for decisions made discretionary by statute.