Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Patel v. Garland: Courts Cannot Review Facts Found in Adjustment-of-Status Proceedings

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 22, 2026

Patel gives the discretionary-relief review bar a broad reach, including threshold factual findings about statutory eligibility for adjustment of status.

A license application created an admissibility dispute

Pankajkumar Patel sought adjustment and said he mistakenly checked a box claiming U.S. citizenship on a Georgia driver-license application. The immigration judge found the representation intentional and denied relief.

The review bar covers judgments regarding relief

Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies to any judgment regarding the granting of relief under adjustment and other enumerated provisions. The majority read this to include factual eligibility determinations, not only the ultimate discretionary choice.

Legal and constitutional questions remain distinct

Section 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves review of constitutional claims and questions of law. Recasting a disagreement with a factual finding does not itself create a reviewable legal issue.

Disposition

The Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The dissent warned that the rule leaves serious factual mistakes uncorrectable, highlighting the importance of building the agency record before judicial review.

Key takeaways

• Develop eligibility facts fully before the immigration judge.
• Distinguish factual disputes from preserved legal questions.
• Do not assume threshold eligibility findings are reviewable.
• Preserve documentary corroboration before the agency record closes.