Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Judulang v. Holder: The Comparable-Grounds Rule Was Arbitrary and Capricious

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 25, 2026

Judulang applies ordinary administrative-law review to an immigration rule governing access to discretionary relief.

Former section 212(c) relief had evolved beyond exclusion cases

Although the statute referred to exclusion at the border, agency and judicial decisions had made relief available in some deportation proceedings. The BIA later conditioned access on whether the charged deportation ground had a comparable exclusion ground.

The rule hinged on the charge selected

Two people with the same conviction could receive different eligibility outcomes depending on how immigration officials characterized the removal ground. That comparison bore little relation to fitness to remain in the country.

Agency policy must connect to the statute

The Administrative Procedure Act requires reasoned decisionmaking. The Court found no rational relationship between the comparable-grounds test and the purposes of the immigration laws or the relief provision.

Disposition

The Court unanimously reversed and remanded. It did not grant section 212(c) relief; it invalidated the agency’s method for determining who could seek it.

Key takeaways

• Identify the agency rule actually controlling eligibility.
• Test whether distinctions relate to statutory purposes.
• Separate eligibility to apply from discretionary entitlement.
• Preserve challenges to arbitrary charge-based outcomes.