[MR. HUGHES]21LOC[MR. HUGHES] Mr22NPMr .23SENT. Chief24NPChief Justice25NPJustice ,26,, and27CCand may28MDmay it29PPit please30VVplease the31DTthe Court32NPCourt :33:: Section34NPSection (35(( 236LS2 )37)) (38(( D39NPD )40)) provides41VVZprovide for42INfor review43NNreview of44INof questions45NNSquestion of46INof law47NNlaw decided48VVNdecide by49INby the50DTthe Board51NPBoard of52INof Immigration53NNimmigration Appeals54NPAppeals .55SENT. I56PPI 'll57MDwill start58VVstart with59INwith where60WRBwhere we61PPwe and62CCand the63DTthe government64NNgovernment agree65VVPagree .66SENT. At67INat minimum68NNminimum ,69,, courts70NNScourt may71MDmay review72VVreview whether73INwhether the74DTthe Board75NPBoard identified76VVDidentify the77DTthe proper78JJproper legal79JJlegal standard80NNstandard .81SENT. The82DTthe government83NNgovernment agrees84VVZagree .85SENT. For86INfor this87DTthis review88NNreview to89TOto be90VBbe meaningful91JJmeaningful and92CCand not93RBnot just94RBjust a95DTa requirement96NNrequirement of97INof correct98JJcorrect boilerplate99NNboilerplate ,100,, courts101NNScourt must102MDmust determine103VVdetermine whether104INwhether the105DTthe government106NNgovernment used107VVDuse the108DTthe proper109JJproper standard110NNstandard .111SENT. Again112RBagain ,113,, the114DTthe government115NNgovernment agrees116VVZagree .117SENT. Review118NPReview extends119VVZextend to120TOto whether121INwhether "122``" the123DTthe Board124NPBoard actually125RBactually used126VVDuse the127DTthe wrong128JJwrong standard129NNstandard .130SENT. "131''" Despite132INdespite acknowledging133VVGacknowledge this134DTthis ,135,, the136DTthe government137NNgovernment fails138VVZfail to139TOto distinguish140VVdistinguish how141WRBhow reviewing142VVGreview whether143INwhether the144DTthe Board145NPBoard actually146RBactually used147VVDuse the148DTthe correct149JJcorrect standard150NNstandard is151VBZbe different152JJdifferent than153INthan reviewing154VVGreview whether155INwhether the156DTthe Board157NPBoard correctly158RBcorrectly applied159VVDapply that160DTthat standard161NNstandard .162SENT. In163INin our164PP$our view165NNview ,166,, these167DTthese inquiries168NNSinquiry are169VBPbe effectively170RBeffectively the171DTthe same172JJsame .173SENT. They174PPthey use175VVPuse the176DTthe same177JJsame tool178NNtool ,179,, applying180VVGapply the181DTthe correct182JJcorrect legal183JJlegal standard184NNstandard to185TOto the186DTthe facts187NNSfact .188SENT. To189TOTo the190DTthe extent191NNextent there192EXthere is193VBZbe a194DTa difference195NNdifference ,196,, the197DTthe government198NNgovernment does199VVZdo not200RBnot provide201VVprovide a202DTa test203NNtest for204INfor telling205VVGtell them206PPthem apart207RPapart .208SENT. Jurisdictional209JJjurisdictional rules210NNSrule need211VVPneed to212TOto be213VBbe clear214JJclear ,215,, but216CCbut the217DTthe government218NNgovernment does219VVZdo not220RBnot explain221VVexplain how222WRBhow courts223NNScourt decide224VVPdecide whether225INwhether the226DTthe Board227NPBoard actually228RBactually used229VVDuse the230DTthe correct231JJcorrect standard232NNstandard .233SENT. Our234PP$our rule235NNrule is236VBZbe clear237JJclear .238SENT. There239EXthere is240VBZbe no241DTno judicial242JJjudicial review243NNreview over244INover historical245JJhistorical facts246NNSfact ,247,, but248CCbut there249EXthere is250VBZbe review251NNreview over252INover their253PP$their legal254JJlegal significance255NNsignificance .256SENT. The257DTthe Court258NPCourt should259MDshould adopt260VVadopt this261DTthis construction262NNconstruction for263INfor three264CDthree reasons265NNSreason .266SENT. First267RBfirst ,268,, it269PPit accords270VVZaccord with271INwith the272DTthe essential273JJessential premise274NNpremise of275INof judicial276JJjudicial review277NNreview which278WDTwhich the279DTthe statutory280JJstatutory text281NNtext has282VHZhave unmistakably283RBunmistakably established284VVNestablish .285SENT. Second286RBsecond ,287,, it288PPit is289VBZbe necessary290JJnecessary for291INfor Congress292NPCongress to293TOto have294VHhave fully295RBfully responded296VVNrespond to297TOto St298NPSt .299SENT. Cyr300NPCyr .301SENT. And302CCand ,303,, third304JJthird ,305,, it306PPit is307VBZbe a308DTa clear309JJclear rule310NNrule which311WDTwhich is312VBZbe crucial313JJcrucial to314TOto establish315VVestablish the316DTthe boundaries317NNSboundary of318INof jurisdiction319NNjurisdiction .320SENT. Turning321VVGturn to322TOto what323WPwhat Congress324NPCongress needed325VVDneed to326TOto do327VVdo in328INin order329NNorder to330TOto fully331RBfully respond332VVrespond to333TOto St334NPSt .335SENT. Cyr336NPCyr ,337,, there338EXthere are339VBPbe at340INat least341JJSleast four342CDfour separate343JJseparate points344NNSpoint that345WDTthat illustrate346VVPillustrate Congress347NPCongress had348VHDhave to349TOto create350VVcreate jurisdiction351NNjurisdiction for352INfor the353DTthe application354NNapplication of355INof law356NNlaw to357TOto fact358NNfact .359SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]360LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Well361UHWell ,362,, before363INbefore you364PPyou get365VVPget to366TOto that367DTthat ,368,, I369PPI wonder370VVPwonder if371INif you372PPyou have373VHPhave not374RBnot read375VVNread too376RBtoo much377RBmuch into378INinto the379DTthe government380NNgovernment 's381POS's statement382NNstatement that383IN/thatthat a384DTa ...385:... that386IN/thatthat under387INunder their388PP$their theory389NNtheory ,390,, it391PPit would392MDwould be393VBbe permissible394JJpermissible for395INfor a396DTa court397NNcourt to398TOto review399VVreview not400RBnot just401RBjust whether402INwhether the403DTthe ...404:... the405DTthe ...406:... the407DTthe Board408NPBoard articulated409VVDarticulate the410DTthe right411JJright theory412NNtheory but413CCbut whether414INwhether it415PPit actually416RBactually used417VVDuse the418DTthe right419JJright theory420NNtheory .421SENT. When422WRBwhen I423PPI read424VVPread that425IN/thatthat ,426,, I427PPI thought428VVDthink what429WPwhat they430PPthey were431VBDbe saying432VVGsay was433VBDbe that434DTthat review435NNreview would436MDwould extend437VVextend to438TOto those439DTthose perhaps440RBperhaps rare441JJrare situations442NNSsituation where443WRBwhere ,444,, although445INalthough it446PPit was447VBDbe in448INin response449NNresponse to450TOto your451PP$your argument452NNargument that453IN/thatthat if454INif the455DTthe ...456:... if457INif the458DTthe ...459:... if460INif the461DTthe right462JJright standard463NNstandard was464VBDbe merely465RBmerely mentioned466VVNmention ,467,, that468WDTthat would469MDwould be470VBbe sufficient471JJsufficient .472SENT. And473CCand I474PPI thought475VVDthink they476PPthey were477VBDbe just478RBjust saying479VVGsay that480IN/thatthat if481INif it482PPit was483VBDbe clear484JJclear that485IN/thatthat even486RBeven though487INthough the488DTthe right489JJright standard490NNstandard was491VBDbe mentioned492VVNmention ,493,, you494PPyou could495MDcould see496VVsee that497IN/thatthat that498DTthat was499VBDbe not500RBnot at501INat all502DTall what503WPwhat was504VBDbe being505VBGbe done506VVNdo ,507,, that508IN/thatthat there509EXthere would510MDwould be511VBbe review512NNreview there513RBthere .514SENT. So515RBso I516PPI thought517VVDthink that518DTthat was519VBDbe a520DTa very521RBvery narrow522JJnarrow exception523NNexception .524SENT. So525RBso the526DTthe ...527:... the528DTthe difference529NNdifference between530INbetween what531WPwhat I532PPI understood533VVDunderstand them534PPthem to535TOto be536VBbe arguing537VVGargue and538CCand your539PP$your position540NNposition was541VBDbe considerably542RBconsiderably larger543JJRlarge than544INthan what545WPwhat you546PPyou suggested547VVDsuggest to548TOto start549VVstart out550RPout .551SENT. [MR. HUGHES]552LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well553UHWell ,554,, as555INas Your556PP$your Honor557NPHonor suggests558VVZsuggest ,559,, I560PPI think561VVPthink the562DTthe government563NNgovernment does564VVZdo agree565VVagree that566IN/thatthat if567INif the568DTthe ...569:... the570DTthe decision571NNdecision of572INof the573DTthe Board574NPBoard on575INon the576DTthe face577NNface invokes578VVZinvoke the579DTthe correct580JJcorrect standard581NNstandard ,582,, but583CCbut a584DTa reasonable585JJreasonable reader586NNreader of587INof that588DTthat decision589NNdecision would590MDwould appreciate591VVappreciate that592IN/thatthat that593DTthat standard594NNstandard was595VBDbe not596RBnot used597VVNuse to598TOto actually599RBactually decide600VVdecide the601DTthe case602NNcase ,603,, that604IN/thatthat there605EXthere would606MDwould be607VBbe judicial608JJjudicial review609NNreview over610INover that611DTthat .612SENT. Once613RBonce the614DTthe government615NNgovernment agrees616VVZagree with617INwith that618IN/thatthat ,619,, which620WDTwhich I621PPI think622VVPthink they623PPthey must624MDmust ,625,, otherwise626RBotherwise it627PPit 's628VBZbe judicial629JJjudicial review630NNreview in631INin substance632NNsubstance ...633:... or634CCor not635RBnot in636INin substance637NNsubstance at638INat all639DTall ,640,, only641RBonly in642INin form643NNform ,644,, once645RBonce the646DTthe government647NNgovernment agrees648VVZagree with649INwith that650DTthat ,651,, they652PPthey have653VHPhave n't654RBn't actually655RBactually articulated656VVNarticulate how657WRBhow that658DTthat test659NNtest differs660VVZdiffer from661INfrom applying662VVGapply law663NNlaw to664TOto fact665NNfact .666SENT. And667CCand our668PP$our point669NNpoint is670VBZbe that671DTthat ...672:... [JUSTICE ALITO]673LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Well674UHwell ,675,, I676PPI think677VVPthink it678PPit 's679VBZbe like680INlike a681DTa sham682NNsham .683SENT. It684PPit 's685VBZbe a686DTa sham687JJsham exception688NNexception .689SENT. So690RBso ,691,, if692INif that693WDTthat 's694VBZbe really695RBreally not696RBnot what697WPwhat 's698VBZbe going699VVGgo on700RPon ,701,, they702PPthey 're703VBPbe not704RBnot really705RBreally applying706VVGapply the707DTthe right708JJright theory709NNtheory ,710,, the711DTthe theory712NNtheory that713IN/thatthat they714PPthey claim715VVPclaim to716TOto apply717VVapply ,718,, there719EXthere would720MDwould be721VBbe review722NNreview in723INin that724DTthat situation725NNsituation .726SENT. That727DTthat 's728VBZbe how729WRBhow I730PPI read731VVPread it732PPit .733SENT. Now734RBnow ...735:... [MR. HUGHES]736LOC[MR. HUGHES] Oh737UHoh ,738,, well739UHwell ,740,, Your741PP$your Honor742NPHonor ,743,, I744PPI ...745:... [JUSTICE ALITO]746LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] ...747:... Mr748NPMr .749SENT. Liu750NPLiu can751MDcan correct752VVcorrect that753DTthat .754SENT. [MR. HUGHES]755LOC[MR. HUGHES] ...756:... I757PPI think758VVPthink a759DTa few760JJfew things761NNSthing about762INabout that763DTthat .764SENT. First765RBfirst ,766,, I767PPI think768VVPthink it769PPit 's770VBZbe very771RBvery difficult772JJdifficult to773TOto distinguish774VVdistinguish what775WPwhat makes776VVZmake for777INfor a778DTa sham779JJsham articulation780NNarticulation of781INof the782DTthe standard783JJstandard versus784CCversus not785RBnot actually786RBactually looking787VVGlook to788TOto determine789VVdetermine whether790INwhether it791PPit was792VBDbe properly793RBproperly applied794VVNapply .795SENT. How796WRBHow do797VVPdo we798PPwe determine799VVdetermine if800INif it801PPit was802VBDbe a803DTa sham804NNsham ?805SENT? You806PPyou consider807VVPconsider what808WPwhat the809DTthe right810JJright standard811NNstandard is812VBZbe .813SENT. You814PPyou consider815VVPconsider the816DTthe facts817NNSfact .818SENT. And819CCand if820INif the821DTthe facts822NNSfact turn823VVPturn out824RPout to825TOto be826VBbe a827DTa textbook828NNtextbook application829NNapplication of830INof that831DTthat standard832NNstandard ,833,, but834CCbut the835DTthe Board836NPBoard reached837VVDreach the838DTthe opposite839JJopposite conclusion840NNconclusion ,841,, you842PPyou would843MDwould find844VVfind that845IN/thatthat it846PPit was847VBDbe a848DTa sham849NNsham .850SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]851LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] But852CCbut there853EXthere 's854VBZbe a855DTa big856JJbig difference857NNdifference between858INbetween your859PP$your two860CDtwo positions861NNSposition ,862,, and863CCand it864PPit has865VHZhave to866TOto do867VVdo with868INwith the869DTthe application870NNapplication of871INof ...872:... of873INof the874DTthe legal875JJlegal standard876NNstandard to877TOto the878DTthe facts879NNSfact where880WRBwhere the881DTthe ...882:... the883DTthe legal884JJlegal standard885NNstandard requires886VVZrequire a887DTa considerable888JJconsiderable exercise889NNexercise of890INof judgment891NNjudgment ,892,, as893INas it894PPit does895VVZdo with896INwith equitable897JJequitable tolling898VVGtoll ,899,, where900WRBwhere you901PPyou have902VHPhave to903TOto determine904VVdetermine whether905INwhether there906EXthere 's907VBZbe due908JJdue diligence909NNdiligence or910CCor exceptional911JJexceptional circumstances912NNScircumstance .913SENT. You914PPyou would915MDwould say916VVsay all917DTall of918INof that919WDTthat can920MDcan be921VBbe reviewed922VVNreview .923SENT. [MR. HUGHES]924LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well925UHWell ,926,, Your927PP$your Honor928NPHonor ,929,, yes930UHyes ,931,, but932CCbut I933PPI think934VVPthink to935TOto the936DTthe extent937NNextent there938EXthere 's939VBZbe a940DTa difference941NNdifference ,942,, if943INif there944EXthere is945VBZbe a946DTa difference947NNdifference ,948,, it949PPit 's950VBZbe a951DTa difference952NNdifference in953INin degree954NNdegree ,955,, but956CCbut the957DTthe government958NNgovernment does959VVZdo n't960RBn't provide961VVprovide a962DTa way963NNway to964TOto distinguish965VVdistinguish between966INbetween when967WRBwhen the968DTthe degree969NNdegree is970VBZbe sufficiently971RBsufficiently enough972JJenough to973TOto say974VVsay that975IN/thatthat the976DTthe standard977NNstandard was978VBDbe n't979RBn't actually980RBactually used981VVNuse .982SENT. But983CCbut the984DTthe other985JJother problem986NNproblem with987INwith this988DTthis is989VBZbe ,990,, if991INif that992WDTthat is993VBZbe the994DTthe test995NNtest that996IN/thatthat the997DTthe government998NNgovernment advances999NNSadvance ,1000,, it1001PPit has1002VHZhave the1003DTthe effect1004NNeffect of1005INof merging1006VVGmerge the1007DTthe underlying1008VVGunderlie merits1009NNSmerit of1010INof the1011DTthe inquiry1012NNinquiry with1013INwith the1014DTthe jurisdictional1015JJjurisdictional analysis1016NNanalysis .1017SENT. The1018DTthe end1019NNend result1020NNresult would1021MDwould be1022VBbe there1023EXthere would1024MDwould be1025VBbe jurisdiction1026NNjurisdiction if1027INif the1028DTthe decision1029NNdecision of1030INof the1031DTthe Board1032NPBoard was1033VBDbe really1034RBreally ,1035,, really1036RBreally wrong1037JJwrong ,1038,, but1039CCbut not1040RBnot if1041INif it1042PPit was1043VBDbe a1044DTa little1045JJlittle bit1046NNbit wrong1047JJwrong .1048SENT. And1049CCand so1050RBso that1051DTthat result1052NNresult would1053MDwould be1054VBbe that1055DTthat you'd1056NNyou'd ...1057:... you1058PPyou 'd1059MDwould have1060VHhave to1061TOto do1062VVdo the1063DTthe merits1064NNSmerit inquiry1065NNinquiry to1066TOto figure1067VVfigure out1068RPout even1069RBeven if1070INif you1071PPyou have1072VHPhave jurisdiction1073NNjurisdiction over1074INover the1075DTthe case1076NNcase .1077SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]1078LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Well1079UHWell ,1080,, suppose1081VVPsuppose we1082PPwe ...1083:... we1084PPwe take1085VVPtake their1086PP$their principal1087JJprincipal argument1088NNargument ,1089,, which1090WDTwhich is1091VBZbe that1092IN/thatthat this1093DTthis applies1094VVZapply ...1095:... the1096DTthe only1097JJonly thing1098NNthing that1099WDTthat can1100MDcan be1101VBbe reviewed1102VVNreview is1103VBZbe a1104DTa pure1105JJpure question1106NNquestion of1107INof law1108NNlaw ,1109,, all1110DTall right1111NNright ?1112SENT? That1113DTthat 's1114VBZbe a1115DTa clear1116JJclear rule1117NNrule .1118SENT. Is1119VBZbe it1120PPit not1121RBnot ?1122SENT? [MR. HUGHES]1123LOC[MR. HUGHES] Yes1124NPYes ,1125,, and1126CCand I1127PPI do1128VVPdo n't1129RBn't think1130VVthink they1131PPthey actually1132RBactually stick1133VVPstick with1134INwith that1135DTthat ,1136,, but1137CCbut that1138WDTthat would1139MDwould be1140VBbe a1141DTa clear1142JJclear ...1143:... a1144DTa clear1145JJclear rule1146NNrule .1147SENT. Yes1148UHyes ,1149,, Your1150PP$your Honor1151NPHonor .1152SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]1153LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Okay1154NPOkay .1155SENT. And1156CCand under1157INunder your1158PP$your interpretation1159NNinterpretation ,1160,, what1161WPwhat is1162VBZbe the1163DTthe difference1164NNdifference between1165INbetween the1166DTthe degree1167NNdegree of1168INof review1169NNreview that1170WDTthat is1171VBZbe permitted1172VVNpermit in1173INin the1174DTthe case1175NNcase of1176INof a1177DTa criminal1178JJcriminal alien1179NNalien and1180CCand the1181DTthe degree1182NNdegree of1183INof review1184NNreview that1185WDTthat 's1186VBZbe permitted1187VVNpermit in1188INin the1189DTthe case1190NNcase of1191INof a1192DTa non-criminal1193JJnon-criminal alien1194NNalien ?1195SENT? [MR. HUGHES]1196LOC[MR. HUGHES] So1197RBso there1198RBthere ...1199:... [JUSTICE ALITO]1200LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] It1201PPit 's1202VBZbe very1203RBvery ,1204,, very1205RBvery ...1206:... it1207PPit 's1208VBZbe very1209RBvery slight1210JJslight ,1211,, right1212RBright ?1213SENT? [MR. HUGHES]1214LOC[MR. HUGHES] I1215PPI do1216VVPdo n't1217RBn't think1218VVthink so1219RBso ,1220,, Your1221PP$your Honor1222NPHonor .1223SENT. There1224EXthere 's1225VBZbe a1226DTa very1227RBvery substantial1228JJsubstantial difference1229NNdifference ,1230,, and1231CCand that1232WDTthat 's1233VBZbe that1234IN/thatthat there1235EXthere 's1236VBZbe no1237DTno review1238NNreview over1239INover all1240DTall of1241INof the1242DTthe factual1243JJfactual determinations1244NNSdetermination that1245WDTthat are1246VBPbe made1247VVNmake .1248SENT. And1249CCand there1250EXthere are1251VBPbe very1252RBvery substantial1253JJsubstantial factual1254JJfactual determinations1255NNSdetermination that1256WDTthat are1257VBPbe often1258RBoften dispositive1259JJdispositive of1260INof removal1261NNremoval cases1262NNScase that1263WDTthat are1264VBPbe made1265VVNmake throughout1266INthroughout these1267DTthese proceedings1268NNSproceeding ,1269,, and1270CCand those1271DTthose would1272MDwould not1273RBnot be1274VBbe subject1275JJsubject to1276TOto judicial1277JJjudicial review1278NNreview .1279SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]1280LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Yeah1281NPYeah .1282SENT. Well1283UHwell ...1284:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]1285LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] But1286CCbut those1287DTthose are1288VBPbe all1289RBall made1290VVNmake under1291INunder a1292DTa substantial1293JJsubstantial evidence1294NNevidence standard1295NNstandard .1296SENT. It1297PPit 's1298VBZbe a1299DTa highly1300RBhighly deferential1301JJdeferential standard1302NNstandard .1303SENT. So1304RBso I1305PPI take1306VVtake your1307PP$your point1308NNpoint that1309IN/thatthat there1310EXthere might1311MDmight be1312VBbe a1313DTa few1314JJfew cases1315NNScase that1316WDTthat would1317MDwould come1318VVcome out1319RPout differently1320RBdifferently ,1321,, but1322CCbut it1323PPit would1324MDwould be1325VBbe rare1326JJrare ,1327,, would1328MDwould n't1329RBn't it1330PPit ?1331SENT? [MR. HUGHES]1332LOC[MR. HUGHES] I1333PPI do1334VVPdo n't1335RBn't think1336VVthink it1337PPit would1338MDwould necessarily1339RBnecessarily be1340VBbe rare1341JJrare ,1342,, Your1343PP$your Honor1344NPHonor .1345SENT. I1346PPI think1347VVPthink there1348EXthere are1349VBPbe many1350JJmany cases1351NNScase where1352WRBwhere courts1353NNScourt of1354INof appeals1355NNSappeal ,1356,, under1357INunder substantial1358JJsubstantial evidence1359NNevidence review1360NNreview ,1361,, still1362RBstill reverse1363VVreverse the1364DTthe ...1365:... the1366DTthe factual1367JJfactual findings1368NNSfinding .1369SENT. But1370CCbut what1371WPwhat we1372PPwe have1373VHPhave here1374RBhere is1375VBZbe we1376PPwe have1377VHPhave a1378DTa statute1379NNstatute ,1380,, (1381(( 21382LS2 )1383)) (1384(( D1385NPD )1386)) ,1387,, that1388WDTthat was1389VBDbe written1390VVNwrite far1391RBfar after1392INafter (1393(( 21394LS2 )1395)) (1396(( C1397NPC )1398)) ,1399,, and1400CCand the1401DTthe reason1402NNreason that1403IN/thatthat (1404(( 21405LS2 )1406)) (1407(( D1408NPD )1409)) was1410VBDbe ...1411:... was1412VBDbe written1413VVNwrite on1414INon top1415NNtop of1416INof (1417(( 21418LS2 )1419)) (1420(( C1421NPC )1422)) was1423VBDbe as1424INas a1425DTa response1426NNresponse to1427TOto what1428WPwhat this1429DTthis Court1430NNcourt held1431VVNhold in1432INin St1433NPSt .1434SENT. Cyr1435NPCyr .1436SENT. So1437RBso I1438PPI think1439VVPthink ,1440,, to1441TOto understand1442VVunderstand what1443WPwhat Congress1444NPCongress was1445VBDbe trying1446VVGtry to1447TOto accomplish1448VVaccomplish in1449INin (1450(( 21451LS2 )1452)) (1453(( D1454NPD )1455)) ,1456,, it1457PPit 's1458VBZbe important1459JJimportant to1460TOto understand1461VVunderstand what1462WPwhat Congress1463NPCongress needed1464VVDneed to1465TOto do1466VVdo in1467INin order1468NNorder to1469TOto respond1470VVrespond to1471TOto what1472WPwhat this1473DTthis Court1474NPCourt ...1475:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]1476LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Could1477MDcould I1478PPI take1479VVtake you1480PPyou off1481RPoff ...1482:... [MR. HUGHES]1483LOC[MR. HUGHES] ...1484:... held1485VVNhold in1486INin St1487NPSt .1488SENT. Cyr1489NPCyr .1490SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]1491LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] I1492PPI 'm1493VBPbe sorry1494JJsorry .1495SENT. You1496PPyou keep1497VVPkeep on1498INon wanting1499VVGwant to1500TOto talk1501VVtalk about1502INabout St1503NPSt .1504SENT. Cyr1505NPCyr and1506CCand we1507PPwe keep1508VVPkeep wanting1509VVGwant to1510TOto talk1511VVtalk about1512INabout other1513JJother things1514NNSthing .1515SENT. But1516CCbut ,1517,, before1518INbefore you1519PPyou get1520VVPget to1521TOto that1522DTthat ,1523,, throughout1524INthroughout your1525PP$your brief1526NNbrief ,1527,, there1528EXthere 's1529VBZbe this1530DTthis idea1531NNidea that1532IN/thatthat really1533RBreally mixed1534JJmixed questions1535NNSquestion of1536INof law1537NNlaw are1538VBPbe pure1539JJpure questions1540NNSquestion of1541INof law1542NNlaw .1543SENT. I1544PPI mean1545VVPmean ,1546,, that1547IN/thatthat ,1548,, you1549PPyou know1550VVPknow ,1551,, if1552INif we1553PPwe have1554VHPhave to1555TOto put1556VVput them1557PPthem in1558INin one1559CDone bucket1560NNbucket or1561CCor another1562DTanother ,1563,, they1564PPthey should1565MDshould go1566VVgo in1567INin the1568DTthe legal1569JJlegal bucket1570NNbucket because1571INbecause they1572PPthey 're1573VBPbe all1574DTall matters1575NNSmatter of1576INof interpretation1577NNinterpretation ,1578,, you1579PPyou say1580VVPsay ;1581:; they1582PPthey 're1583VBPbe all1584RBall essentially1585RBessentially law-like1586JJlaw-like .1587SENT. But1588CCbut ,1589,, you1590PPyou know1591VVPknow ,1592,, I1593PPI started1594VVDstart looking1595VVGlook around1596INaround to1597TOto ...1598:... to1599TOto think1600VVthink about1601INabout some1602DTsome of1603INof the1604DTthe other1605JJother questions1606NNSquestion that1607IN/thatthat your1608PP$your view1609NNview might1610MDmight suggest1611VVsuggest is1612VBZbe a1613DTa law1614NNlaw question1615NNquestion ,1616,, and1617CCand so1618RBso here1619RBhere are1620VBPbe just1621RBjust a1622DTa few1623JJfew that1624IN/thatthat I1625PPI came1626VVDcome up1627RPup with1628INwith :1629:: whether1630INwhether a1631DTa non-citizen1632NNnon-citizen 's1633POS's removal1634NNremoval would1635MDwould result1636VVresult in1637INin exceptional1638JJexceptional and1639CCand extremely1640RBextremely unusual1641JJunusual hardship1642NNhardship ,1643,, whether1644INwhether a1645DTa non-citizen1646NNnon-citizen has1647VHZhave been1648VBNbe subjected1649VVNsubject to1650TOto extreme1651JJextreme cruelty1652NNcruelty ,1653,, whether1654INwhether changed1655VVNchange country1656NNcountry conditions1657NNScondition are1658VBPbe present1659JJpresent .1660SENT. I1661PPI could1662MDcould go1663VVgo on1664INon ,1665,, but1666CCbut all1667DTall of1668INof these1669DTthese ...1670:... you1671PPyou know1672VVPknow ,1673,, if1674INif you1675PPyou just1676RBjust sort1677VVsort of1678INof look1679NNlook at1680INat them1681PPthem and1682CCand say1683VVPsay what1684WPwhat is1685VBZbe it1686PPit mostly1687RBmostly going1688VVGgo to1689TOto involve1690VVinvolve ,1691,, it1692PPit seems1693VVZseem as1694INas though1695INthough most1696JJSmost of1697INof those1698DTthose questions1699NNSquestion are1700VBPbe going1701VVGgo to1702TOto mostly1703RBmostly involve1704VVinvolve fact-finding1705JJfact-finding .1706SENT. [MR. HUGHES]1707LOC[MR. HUGHES] So1708RBso ,1709,, Your1710PP$your Honor1711NPHonor ,1712,, a1713DTa few1714JJfew responses1715NNSresponse to1716TOto that1717DTthat .1718SENT. First1719RBfirst ,1720,, some1721DTsome of1722INof the1723DTthe examples1724NNSexample that1725IN/thatthat you1726PPyou gave1727VVDgive are1728VBPbe ultimately1729RBultimately issues1730NNSissue that1731WDTthat are1732VBPbe discretionary1733JJdiscretionary .1734SENT. And1735CCand when1736WRBwhen we1737PPwe have1738VHPhave a1739DTa discretionary1740JJdiscretionary question1741NNquestion ,1742,, of1743INof course1744NNcourse ,1745,, there1746EXthere 's1747VBZbe a1748DTa different1749JJdifferent framework1750NNframework under1751INunder (1752(( 21753LS2 )1754)) (1755(( B1756NPB )1757)) which1758WDTwhich would1759MDwould ...1760:... there1761EXthere would1762MDwould be1763VBbe review1764NNreview over1765INover the1766DTthe eligibility1767NNeligibility for1768INfor the1769DTthe discretionary1770JJdiscretionary determination1771NNdetermination ;1772:; for1773INfor example1774NNexample ,1775,, whether1776INwhether or1777CCor not1778RBnot there1779EXthere 's1780VBZbe a1781DTa changed1782JJchanged country1783NNcountry condition1784NNcondition is1785VBZbe likely1786RBlikely a1787DTa discretionary1788JJdiscretionary determination1789NNdetermination by1790INby the1791DTthe Board1792NPBoard .1793SENT. But1794CCbut to1795TOto ...1796:... but1797CCbut to1798TOto get1799VVget to1800TOto Your1801PP$your Honor1802NPHonor 's1803POS's principal1804JJprincipal question1805NNquestion about1806INabout how1807WRBhow we1808PPwe disentangle1809VVPdisentangle the1810DTthe ...1811:... the1812DTthe facts1813NNSfact and1814CCand the1815DTthe law1816NNlaw here1817RBhere ,1818,, and1819CCand I1820PPI think1821VVPthink the1822DTthe question1823NNquestion goes1824VVZgo to1825TOto whether1826INwhether or1827CCor not1828RBnot the1829DTthe Lakeridge1830NPLakeridge style1831NNstyle analysis1832NNanalysis ,1833,, where1834WRBwhere we1835PPwe characterize1836VVPcharacterize mixed1837JJmixed questions1838NNSquestion as1839RBas more1840RBRmore principally1841RBprincipally legal1842JJlegal or1843CCor more1844RBRmore principally1845RBprincipally factual1846JJfactual ,1847,, should1848MDshould be1849VBbe used1850VVNuse in1851INin this1852DTthis context1853NNcontext .1854SENT. And1855CCand I1856PPI think1857VVPthink that1858IN/thatthat ,1859,, of1860INof course1861NNcourse ,1862,, the1863DTthe Court1864NPCourt has1865VHZhave established1866VVNestablish that1867DTthat sort1868NNsort of1869INof framework1870NNframework for1871INfor use1872NNuse in1873INin other1874JJother parts1875NNSpart of1876INof the1877DTthe law1878NNlaw .1879SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]1880LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Well1881UHwell ,1882,, I1883PPI was1884VBDbe n't1885RBn't even1886RBeven talking1887VVGtalk about1888INabout using1889VVGuse the1890DTthe Lakeridge1891NPLakeridge framework1892NNframework here1893RBhere .1894SENT. I1895PPI was1896VBDbe just1897RBjust sort1898NNsort of1899INof talking1900VVGtalk about1901INabout the1902DTthe assumption1903NNassumption that1904IN/thatthat your1905PP$your briefs1906NNSbrief make1907VVPmake that1908IN/thatthat ,1909,, if1910INif you1911PPyou were1912VBDbe to1913TOto put1914VVput these1915DTthese in1916INin one1917CDone bucket1918NNbucket ,1919,, just1920RBjust one1921CDone bucket1922NNbucket ,1923,, it1924PPit should1925MDshould be1926VBbe the1927DTthe legal1928JJlegal bucket1929NNbucket ,1930,, that1931IN/thatthat these1932DTthese are1933VBPbe really1934RBreally law1935NNlaw questions1936NNSquestion .1937SENT. And1938CCand I1939PPI guess1940VVPguess I1941PPI 'm1942VBPbe saying1943VVGsay that1944IN/thatthat when1945WRBwhen I1946PPI look1947VVPlook at1948INat the1949DTthe range1950NNrange of1951INof these1952DTthese questions1953NNSquestion ,1954,, quite1955RBquite a1956DTa lot1957NNlot of1958INof them1959PPthem seemed1960VVDseem to1961TOto me1962PPme to1963TOto be1964VBbe really1965RBreally fact1966NNfact questions1967NNSquestion ,1968,, you1969PPyou know1970VVPknow ,1971,, cases1972VVZcase where1973WRBwhere it1974PPit 's1975VBZbe not1976RBnot only1977RBonly the1978DTthe finding1979NNfinding of1980INof facts1981NNSfact ,1982,, but1983CCbut it1984PPit 's1985VBZbe the1986DTthe weighing1987VVGweigh of1988INof facts1989NNSfact ,1990,, the1991DTthe making1992VVGmake credibility1993NNcredibility judgments1994NNSjudgment ,1995,, the1996DTthe weighing1997VVGweigh ,1998,, you1999PPyou know2000VVPknow ,2001,, the2002DTthe balancing2003NNbalancing of2004INof different2005JJdifferent facts2006NNSfact against2007INagainst each2008DTeach other2009JJother ,2010,, that2011DTthat sort2012NNsort of2013INof thing2014NNthing .2015SENT. [MR. HUGHES]2016LOC[MR. HUGHES] So2017RBso ,2018,, Your2019PP$your Honor2020NPHonor ,2021,, I2022PPI ...2023:... I2024PPI agree2025VVPagree insofar2026RBinsofar as2027INas what2028WPwhat the2029DTthe Board2030NPBoard is2031VBZbe doing2032VVGdo is2033VBZbe finding2034VVGfind historic2035JJhistoric facts2036NNSfact or2037CCor finding2038VVGfind credibility2039NNcredibility or2040CCor adding2041VVGadd historic2042JJhistoric facts2043NNSfact to2044TOto make2045VVmake other2046JJother judgments2047NNSjudgment about2048INabout historic2049JJhistoric facts2050NNSfact or2051CCor predictions2052NNSprediction about2053INabout future2054JJfuture facts2055NNSfact .2056SENT. Those2057DTthose sorts2058NNSsort of2059INof factual2060JJfactual determinations2061NNSdetermination are2062VBPbe things2063NNSthing that2064IN/thatthat there2065EXthere would2066MDwould not2067RBnot be2068VBbe jurisdiction2069NNjurisdiction under2070INunder 22071CD2 (2072(( D2073NPD )2074)) .2075SENT. What2076WPWhat our2077PP$our point2078NNpoint is2079VBZbe ,2080,, is2081VBZbe once2082RBonce those2083DTthose historic2084JJhistoric facts2085NNSfact have2086VHPhave been2087VBNbe found2088VVNfind and2089CCand then2090RBthen a2091DTa legal2092JJlegal standard2093NNstandard is2094VBZbe applied2095VVNapply to2096TOto those2097DTthose facts2098NNSfact ,2099,, that2100DTthat aspect2101NNaspect of2102INof the2103DTthe mixed2104JJmixed question2105NNquestion is2106VBZbe legal2107JJlegal .2108SENT. So2109RBso ...2110:... and2111CCand let2112VVlet me2113PPme try2114VVtry to2115TOto clarify2116VVclarify our2117PP$our briefs2118NNSbrief .2119SENT. We2120PPwe think2121VVPthink in2122INin every2123DTevery mixed2124JJmixed question2125NNquestion ,2126,, by2127INby its2128PP$its definition2129NNdefinition ,2130,, there2131EXthere is2132VBZbe a2133DTa legal2134JJlegal element2135NNelement and2136CCand there2137EXthere 's2138VBZbe a2139DTa factual2140JJfactual element2141NNelement .2142SENT. And2143CCand so2144RBso sometimes2145RBsometimes it2146PPit 's2147VBZbe true2148JJtrue the2149DTthe factual2150JJfactual element2151NNelement will2152MDwill be2153VBbe far2154RBfar greater2155JJRgreat than2156INthan the2157DTthe legal2158JJlegal element2159NNelement .2160SENT. But2161CCbut our2162PP$our point2163NNpoint is2164VBZbe that2165IN/thatthat 12522166CD@card@ creates2167VVZcreate a2168DTa structure2169NNstructure where2170WRBwhere there2171EXthere is2172VBZbe judicial2173JJjudicial review2174NNreview insofar2175RBinsofar as2176INas there2177EXthere is2178VBZbe the2179DTthe legal2180JJlegal element2181NNelement of2182INof the2183DTthe mixed2184JJmixed question2185NNquestion ,2186,, and2187CCand that2188IN/thatthat ,2189,, unlike2190INunlike what2191WPwhat happens2192VVZhappen in2193INin other2194JJother contexts2195NNScontext where2196WRBwhere those2197DTthose two2198CDtwo are2199VBPbe put2200VVNput together2201RBtogether and2202CCand there2203EXthere is2204VBZbe a2205DTa single2206JJsingle standard2207NNstandard of2208INof review2209NNreview provided2210VVNprovide ,2211,, the2212DTthe structure2213NNstructure that2214IN/thatthat 12522215CD@card@ creates2216VVZcreate is2217VBZbe the2218DTthe courts2219NNScourt disaggregate2220VVPdisaggregate the2221DTthe ...2222:... the2223DTthe ...2224:... the2225DTthe legal2226JJlegal findings2227NNSfinding from2228INfrom the2229DTthe factual2230JJfactual findings2231NNSfinding and2232CCand they2233PPthey have2234VHPhave to2235TOto set2236VVset those2237DTthose aside2238RBaside .2239SENT. So2240RBso all2241RBall of2242INof the2243DTthe examples2244NNSexample Your2245PP$your Honor2246NPHonor provided2247VVNprovide about2248INabout the2249DTthe factual2250JJfactual findings2251NNSfinding we2252PPwe agree2253VVPagree are2254VBPbe not2255RBnot reviewable2256JJreviewable .2257SENT. But2258CCbut ,2259,, to2260TOto the2261DTthe extent2262NNextent there2263EXthere 's2264VBZbe the2265DTthe application2266NNapplication of2267INof a2268DTa legal2269JJlegal standard2270NNstandard or2271CCor considering2272VVGconsider the2273DTthe legal2274JJlegal significance2275NNsignificance of2276INof those2277DTthose historic2278JJhistoric facts2279NNSfact ,2280,, that2281WDTthat is2282VBZbe where2283WRBwhere the2284DTthe ...2285:... the2286DTthe ...2287:... the2288DTthe Board2289NPBoard is2290VBZbe doing2291VVGdo legal2292JJlegal work2293NNwork and2294CCand there2295EXthere is2296VBZbe judicial2297JJjudicial review2298NNreview over2299INover that2300WDTthat ,2301,, as2302INas a2303DTa question2304NNquestion of2305INof law2306NNlaw ...2307:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]2308LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] I2309PPI was2310VBDbe thinking2311VVGthink ...2312:... [MR. HUGHES]2313LOC[MR. HUGHES] ...2314:... under2315INunder Section2316NPSection 22317CD2 (2318(( D2319NPD )2320)) .2321SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]2322LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] ...2323:... about2324RBabout this2325DTthis in2326INin similar2327JJsimilar terms2328NNSterm to2329TOto Justice2330NPJustice Kagan2331NPKagan ,2332,, but2333CCbut what2334WPwhat I2335PPI realize2336VVPrealize gave2337VVDgive me2338PPme some2339DTsome clarity2340NNclarity was2341VBDbe a2342DTa statement2343NNstatement that2344IN/thatthat my2345PP$my colleague2346NNcolleague made2347VVNmake in2348INin a2349DTa case2350NNcase involving2351VVGinvolve the2352DTthe exceptional2353JJexceptional circumstances2354NNScircumstance of2355INof diligence2356NNdiligence and2357CCand where2358WRBwhere he2359PPhe said2360VVDsay it2361PPit 's2362VBZbe a2363DTa question2364NNquestion of2365INof law2366NNlaw ,2367,, because2368INbecause let2369VVlet 's2370VBZbe take2371VVtake the2372DTthe cruel2373JJcruel ...2374:... cruelty2375NNcruelty issue2376NNissue .2377SENT. Whether2378INwhether a2379DTa punch2380NNpunch is2381VBZbe cruel2382JJcruel or2383CCor a2384DTa knife2385NNknife wound2386NNwound is2387VBZbe or2388CCor a2389DTa threat2390NNthreat to2391TOto family2392NNfamily is2393VBZbe ,2394,, all2395RBall of2396INof those2397DTthose are2398VBPbe facts2399NNSfact that2400WDTthat can2401MDcan be2402VBbe found2403VVNfind by2404INby the2405DTthe BIA2406NPBia or2407CCor a2408DTa finder2409NNfinder of2410INof fact2411NNfact .2412SENT. But2413CCbut whether2414INwhether it2415PPit constitutes2416VVZconstitute or2417CCor rises2418VVZrise to2419TOto the2420DTthe level2421NNlevel of2422INof the2423DTthe legal2424JJlegal standard2425NNstandard is2426VBZbe a2427DTa question2428NNquestion of2429INof law2430NNlaw ,2431,, correct2432JJcorrect ?2433SENT? [MR. HUGHES]2434LOC[MR. HUGHES] I2435PPI think2436VVPthink that2437WDTthat 's2438VBZbe right2439JJright ,2440,, Your2441PP$your Honor2442NPHonor .2443SENT. And2444CCand one2445CDone example2446NNexample in2447INin this2448DTthis case2449NNcase is2450VBZbe ...2451:... is2452VBZbe the2453DTthe issue2454NNissue of2455INof whether2456INwhether or2457CCor not2458RBnot the2459DTthe Fifth2460NPFifth Circu2461NPCircu it2462PPit 's2463VBZbe decision2464NNdecision in2465INin Lugo-Resendez2466NPLugo-Resendez qualifies2467VVZqualify as2468INas an2469DTan extraordinary2470JJextraordinary circumstance2471NNcircumstance .2472SENT. Either2473CCeither that2474DTthat change2475NNchange in2476INin the2477DTthe law2478NNlaw qualifies2479VVZqualify as2480INas an2481DTan extraordinary2482JJextraordinary circumstance2483NNcircumstance ,2484,, which2485WDTwhich has2486VHZhave substantial2487JJsubstantial effects2488NNSeffect for2489INfor equitable2490JJequitable tolling2491VVGtoll ,2492,, or2493CCor it2494PPit does2495VVZdo n't2496RBn't .2497SENT. But2498CCbut whatever2499WDTwhatever the2500DTthe answer2501NNanswer to2502TOto that2503DTthat question2504NNquestion is2505VBZbe ,2506,, that2507WDTthat 's2508VBZbe the2509DTthe sort2510NNsort of2511INof legal2512JJlegal issue2513NNissue that2514WDTthat should2515MDshould be2516VBbe decided2517VVNdecide the2518DTthe same2519JJsame .2520SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]2521LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well2522UHWell ,2523,, but2524CCbut ,2525,, I2526PPI ...2527:... I2528PPI mean2529VVPmean ,2530,, you2531PPyou know2532VVPknow ,2533,, is2534VBZbe a2535DTa punch2536NNpunch cruel2537JJcruel ?2538SENT? I2539PPI mean2540VVPmean ,2541,, obviously2542RBobviously ,2543,, in2544INin the2545DTthe ...2546:... in2547INin the2548DTthe abstract2549JJabstract ,2550,, it2551PPit could2552MDcould be2553VBbe anything2554NNanything to2555TOto ...2556:... however2557RBhowever soft2558JJsoft it2559PPit is2560VBZbe ,2561,, to2562TOto the2563DTthe extent2564NNextent it2565PPit 's2566VBZbe an2567DTan offense2568NNoffense to2569TOto dignity2570NNdignity or2571CCor ,2572,, you2573PPyou know2574VVPknow ,2575,, I2576PPI mean2577VVPmean ,2578,, is2579VBZbe n't2580RBn't ...2581:... would2582MDwould n't2583RBn't one2584CDone thing2585NNthing to2586TOto do2587VVdo if2588INif you2589PPyou 're2590VBPbe trying2591VVGtry to2592TOto figure2593VVfigure that2594IN/thatthat out2595RBout to2596TOto be2597VBbe look2598NNlook at2599INat the2600DTthe range2601NNrange of2602INof legal2603JJlegal decisions2604NNSdecision ,2605,, determinations2606NNSdetermination ,2607,, that2608WDTthat said2609VVDsay this2610DTthis conduct2611NNconduct is2612VBZbe cruel2613JJcruel ,2614,, this2615DTthis conduct2616NNconduct is2617VBZbe not2618RBnot ,2619,, this2620DTthis conduct2621NNconduct is2622VBZbe cruel2623JJcruel ,2624,, and2625CCand I2626PPI do2627VVPdo n't2628RBn't know2629VVknow that2630IN/thatthat that2631WDTthat makes2632VVZmake it2633PPit any2634DTany easier2635JJReasy to2636TOto characterize2637VVcharacterize .2638SENT. [MR. HUGHES]2639LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well2640UHWell ,2641,, I2642PPI ...2643:... I2644PPI think2645VVPthink ,2646,, Your2647PP$your Honor2648NPHonor ,2649,, the2650DTthe Court2651NPCourt has2652VHZhave found2653VVNfind that2654IN/thatthat it2655PPit is2656VBZbe relatively2657RBrelatively easy2658JJeasy ,2659,, although2660INalthough there2661EXthere is2662VBZbe always2663RBalways line2664NNline drawing2665NNdrawing ,2666,, but2667CCbut the2668DTthe courts2669NNScourt are2670VBPbe well2671RBwell equipped2672VVNequip to2673TOto be2674VBbe able2675JJable to2676TOto distinguish2677VVdistinguish between2678INbetween where2679WRBwhere historic2680JJhistoric fact2681NNfact ends2682NNSend and2683CCand legal2684JJlegal conclusions2685NNSconclusion begin2686VVPbegin .2687SENT. That2688DTthat 's2689VBZbe something2690NNsomething the2691DTthe courts2692NNScourt have2693VHPhave to2694TOto do2695VVdo every2696DTevery day2697NNday of2698INof the2699DTthe week2700NNweek when2701WRBwhen they2702PPthey resolve2703VVPresolve 122704RB@card@ (2705(( b2706LSb )2707)) (2708(( 62709CD6 )2710)) motions2711NNSmotion ,2712,, for2713INfor example2714NNexample ,2715,, where2716WRBwhere Iqbal2717NPIqbal and2718CCand Twombly2719NPTwombly instruct2720VVPinstruct the2721DTthe courts2722NNScourt to2723TOto set2724VVset aside2725RPaside legal2726JJlegal conclusions2727NNSconclusion that2728WDTthat are2729VBPbe within2730INwithin a2731DTa complaint2732NNcomplaint .2733SENT. So2734INso I2735PPI ...2736:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]2737LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] But2738CCbut do2739VVPdo n't2740RBn't ...2741:... we2742PPwe do2743VVPdo ...2744:... [MR. HUGHES]2745LOC[MR. HUGHES] ...2746:... agree2747VVagree those2748DTthose ...2749:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]2750LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] ...2751:... we2752PPwe do2753VVPdo know2754VVknow that2755IN/thatthat Congress2756NPCongress meant2757VVDmean to2758TOto restrict2759VVrestrict the2760DTthe court2761NNcourt of2762INof appeals2763NNSappeal '2764POS' review2765NNreview of2766INof orders2767NNSorder of2768INof removal2769NNremoval of2770INof criminal2771JJcriminal aliens2772NNSalien ,2773,, so2774INso that2775WDTthat was2776VBDbe Congress2777NPCongress 's2778POS's purpose2779NNpurpose when2780WRBwhen it2781PPit wanted2782VVDwant the2783DTthe limited2784JJlimited ...2785:... limited2786JJlimited review2787NNreview in2788INin ...2789:... in2790INin the2791DTthe case2792NNcase of2793INof removal2794NNremoval of2795INof criminal2796JJcriminal aliens2797NNSalien .2798SENT. And2799CCand you2800PPyou ...2801:... you2802PPyou ...2803:... your2804PP$your position2805NNposition is2806VBZbe only2807RBonly fact2808NNfact disputes2809NNSdispute are2810VBPbe reviewable2811JJreviewable ,2812,, no2813DTno law2814NNlaw ,2815,, application2816NNapplication of2817INof law2818NNlaw to2819TOto undisputed2820JJundisputed facts2821NNSfact ,2822,, only2823RBonly straight2824RBstraight out2825INout fact2826NNfact disputes2827NNSdispute .2828SENT. And2829CCand how2830WRBhow often2831RBoften do2832VVdo straight2833RBstraight out2834INout fact2835NNfact disputes2836NNSdispute come2837VVNcome to2838TOto court2839NNcourt of2840INof appeals2841NNSappeal ?2842SENT? Because2843INbecause usually2844RBusually facts2845NNSfact are2846VBPbe decided2847VVNdecide in2848INin the2849DTthe first2850JJfirst instance2851NNinstance .2852SENT. [MR. HUGHES]2853LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well2854UHWell ,2855,, Your2856PP$your Honor2857NPHonor ,2858,, I2859PPI can2860MDcan say2861VVsay that2862IN/thatthat factual2863JJfactual disputes2864NNSdispute are2865VBPbe very2866RBvery often2867RBoften entirely2868RBentirely dispositive2869JJdispositive of2870INof removal2871NNremoval proceedings2872NNSproceeding .2873SENT. It2874PPit 's2875VBZbe true2876JJtrue that2877IN/thatthat those2878DTthose cases2879NNScase may2880MDmay be2881VBbe less2882RBRless often2883RBoften appealed2884VVNappeal because2885INbecause of2886INof the2887DTthe substantial2888JJsubstantial or2889CCor the2890DTthe standard2891NNstandard of2892INof review2893NNreview that2894IN/thatthat courts2895NNScourt of2896INof appeals2897NNSappeal apply2898VVPapply ,2899,, but2900CCbut I2901PPI can2902MDcan just2903RBjust provide2904VVprovide a2905DTa few2906JJfew examples2907NNSexample of2908INof factual2909JJfactual issues2910NNSissue that2911WDTthat are2912VBPbe often2913RBoften dispositive2914JJdispositive .2915SENT. For2916INfor example2917NNexample ,2918,, an2919DTan individual2920NNindividual might2921MDmight claim2922VVclaim that2923IN/thatthat they2924PPthey were2925VBDbe born2926VVNbear in2927INin the2928DTthe United2929NPUnited States2930NPSStates ,2931,, so2932RBso ,2933,, in2934INin fact2935NNfact ,2936,, a2937DTa U2938NPU .2939SENT. S2940NPS .2941SENT. citizen2942NNcitizen .2943SENT. They2944PPthey might2945MDmight claim2946VVclaim that2947IN/thatthat examples2948NNSexample of2949INof past2950JJpast persecution2951NNpersecution occurred2952VVDoccur ,2953,, so2954RBso they2955PPthey 're2956VBPbe entitled2957VVNentitle to2958TOto asylum2959NNasylum ,2960,, but2961CCbut the2962DTthe Board2963NPBoard might2964MDmight disagree2965VVdisagree .2966SENT. That2967DTthat can2968MDcan include2969VVinclude ,2970,, if2971INif they2972PPthey had2973VHDhave forced2974VVNforce sterilization2975NNsterilization or2976CCor forced2977JJforced abortions2978NNSabortion ,2979,, the2980DTthe Board2981NPBoard will2982MDwill have2983VHhave to2984TOto decide2985VVdecide whether2986INwhether or2987CCor not2988RBnot those2989DTthose things2990NNSthing occurred2991VVDoccur .2992SENT. Did2993VVDdo the2994DTthe individual2995NNindividual testify2996VVtestify credibly2997RBcredibly ?2998SENT? That2999DTthat will3000MDwill often3001RBoften be3002VBbe dispositive3003JJdispositive of3004INof the3005DTthe removal3006NNremoval proceeding3007NNproceeding .3008SENT. And3009CCand I3010PPI can3011MDcan go3012VVgo on3013INon with3014INwith a3015DTa list3016NNlist of3017INof different3018JJdifferent issues3019NNSissue .3020SENT. For3021INfor example3022NNexample ,3023,, was3024VBDbe the3025DTthe individual3026NNindividual convicted3027VVNconvict of3028INof the3029DTthe particular3030JJparticular crime3031NNcrime or3032CCor was3033VBDbe it3034PPit somebody3035NNsomebody else3036RBelse with3037INwith the3038DTthe same3039JJsame name3040NNname ?3041SENT? Those3042DTthose are3043VBPbe factual3044JJfactual disputes3045NNSdispute that3046IN/thatthat the3047DTthe Boards3048NNSboard are3049VBPbe resolving3050VVGresolve or3051CCor that3052IN/thatthat the3053DTthe immigration3054NNimmigration judges3055NNSjudge in3056INin the3057DTthe first3058JJfirst instance3059NNinstance and3060CCand then3061RBthen the3062DTthe Boards3063NNSboard are3064VBPbe resolving3065VVGresolve on3066INon a3067DTa daily3068JJdaily basis3069NNbasis .3070SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]3071LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Mr3072NPMr .3073SENT. Hughes3074NPHughes ,3075,, along3076INalong similar3077JJsimilar lines3078NNSline ,3079,, the3080DTthe question3081NNquestion we3082PPwe have3083VHPhave here3084RBhere is3085VBZbe reasonable3086JJreasonable diligence3087NNdiligence .3088SENT. That3089DTthat ...3090:... that3091WDTthat 's3092VBZbe the3093DTthe big3094JJbig question3095NNquestion .3096SENT. And3097CCand when3098WRBwhen that3099DTthat 's3100VBZbe reviewed3101VVNreview under3102INunder 12523103CD@card@ ,3104,, where3105WRBwhere it3106PPit can3107MDcan be3108VBbe reviewed3109VVNreview ,3110,, my3111PP$my understanding3112NNunderstanding is3113VBZbe the3114DTthe courts3115NNScourt of3116INof appeals3117NNSappeal review3118VVPreview that3119IN/thatthat for3120INfor abuse3121NNabuse of3122INof discretion3123NNdiscretion .3124SENT. And3125CCand that3126WDTthat would3127MDwould typically3128RBtypically be3129VBbe the3130DTthe case3131NNcase in3132INin a3133DTa lot3134NNlot of3135INof questions3136NNSquestion where3137WRBwhere diligence3138NNdiligence is3139VBZbe ...3140:... is3141VBZbe the3142DTthe issue3143NNissue .3144SENT. The3145DTthe courts3146NNScourt of3147INof appeals3148NNSappeal will3149MDwill review3150VVreview that3151IN/thatthat for3152INfor ...3153:... for3154INfor abuse3155NNabuse of3156INof discretion3157NNdiscretion .3158SENT. If3159INif that3160DTthat 's3161VBZbe right3162JJright ...3163:... and3164CCand just3165RBjust suppose3166VVPsuppose for3167INfor a3168DTa moment3169NNmoment that3170WDTthat 's3171VBZbe right3172JJright ,3173,, all3174DTall right3175NNright ?3176SENT? Let3177NPLet 's3178POS's not3179RBnot argue3180VVPargue about3181RBabout that3182RBthat .3183SENT. Let3184VVlet 's3185VBZbe suppose3186VVsuppose that3187WDTthat 's3188VBZbe the3189DTthe right3190JJright standard3191NNstandard of3192INof review3193NNreview .3194SENT. What3195WPWhat does3196VVZdo that3197RBthat teach3198VVteach us3199PPus about3200INabout the3201DTthe ...3202:... the3203DTthe question3204NNquestion before3205INbefore us3206PPus ?3207SENT? [MR. HUGHES]3208LOC[MR. HUGHES] As3209INas Your3210PP$your Honor3211NPHonor suggests3212VVZsuggest ,3213,, I3214PPI ...3215:... I3216PPI ...3217:... our3218PP$our principal3219JJprincipal argument3220NNargument is3221VBZbe to3222TOto resist3223VVresist the3224DTthe premise3225NNpremise .3226SENT. We3227PPwe do3228VVPdo think3229VVthink that3230IN/thatthat the3231DTthe weight3232NNweight of3233INof the3234DTthe laws3235NNSlaw in3236INin this3237DTthis Court3238NPCourt 's3239POS's precedent3240NNprecedent is3241VBZbe treating3242VVGtreat diligence3243NNdiligence not3244RBnot as3245RBas ...3246:... as3247INas a3248DTa question3249NNquestion of3250INof law3251NNlaw that3252WDTthat is3253VBZbe reviewed3254VVNreview de3255NPde novo3256NPNovo .3257SENT. But3258CCbut if3259INif the3260DTthe Court3261NPCourt ...3262:... accepting3263VVGaccept the3264DTthe premise3265NNpremise and3266CCand the3267DTthe Court3268NPCourt disagrees3269VVZdisagree with3270INwith us3271PPus ,3272,, which3273WDTwhich I3274PPI do3275VVPdo n't3276RBn't think3277VVthink it3278PPit should3279MDshould ,3280,, but3281CCbut if3282INif the3283DTthe Court3284NPCourt does3285VVZdo disagree3286VVdisagree with3287INwith us3288PPus ,3289,, what3290WPwhat this3291DTthis Court3292NPCourt still3293RBstill holds3294VVZhold is3295VBZbe ,3296,, to3297TOto the3298DTthe extent3299NNextent that3300IN/thatthat there3301EXthere is3302VBZbe deference3303NNdeference or3304CCor ...3305:... or3306CCor ...3307:... a3308DTa discretion3309NNdiscretion that3310WDTthat lies3311VVZlie with3312INwith the3313DTthe Board3314NPBoard ,3315,, still3316RBstill the3317DTthe proper3318JJproper way3319NNway to3320TOto approach3321VVapproach Section3322NPSection 23323CD2 (3324(( D3325NPD )3326)) in3327INin these3328DTthese contexts3329NNScontext is3330VBZbe to3331TOto determine3332VVdetermine whether3333INwhether or3334CCor not3335RBnot the3336DTthe individual3337NNindividual has3338VHZhave shown3339VVNshow their3340PP$their legal3341JJlegal eligibility3342NNeligibility ,3343,, that3344WDTthat 23345CD2 (3346(( D3347NPD )3348)) provides3349VVZprovide review3350NNreview over3351INover that3352DTthat eligibility3353NNeligibility for3354INfor the3355DTthe ultimate3356JJultimate exercise3357NNexercise of3358INof discretion3359NNdiscretion .3360SENT. So3361RBso even3362RBeven if3363INif reasonable3364JJreasonable diligence3365NNdiligence is3366VBZbe discretionary3367JJdiscretionary ,3368,, and3369CCand we3370PPwe do3371VVPdo n't3372RBn't think3373VVthink it3374PPit is3375VBZbe ,3376,, but3377CCbut there3378EXthere would3379MDwould still3380RBstill be3381VBbe the3382DTthe question3383NNquestion if3384INif they3385PPthey 've3386VHPhave shown3387VVNshow the3388DTthe threshold3389NNthreshold step3390NNstep of3391INof being3392VBGbe eligible3393JJeligible .3394SENT. And3395CCand Your3396PP$your Honor3397NPHonor 's3398POS's decision3399NNdecision in3400INin Iliev3401NPIliev in3402INin the3403DTthe Tenth3404JJtenth Circuit3405NNcircuit ,3406,, I3407PPI think3408VVPthink ,3409,, clearly3410RBclearly established3411VVNestablish how3412WRBhow ,3413,, even3414RBeven when3415WRBwhen there3416EXthere is3417VBZbe an3418DTan underlying3419VVGunderlie discretionary3420JJdiscretionary determination3421NNdetermination ,3422,, there3423EXthere is3424VBZbe ...3425:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]3426LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] I3427PPI think3428VVPthink I3429PPI did3430VVDdo everything3431NNeverything I3432PPI could3433MDcould to3434TOto avoid3435VVavoid this3436DTthis question3437NNquestion in3438INin that3439DTthat case3440NNcase ,3441,, and3442CCand I3443PPI think3444VVPthink you3445PPyou know3446VVPknow that3447RBthat .3448SENT. But3449CCbut I3450PPI ...3451:... I3452PPI ...3453:... I3454PPI ...3455:... I3456PPI guess3457VVPguess I3458PPI 'm3459VBPbe just3460RBjust trying3461VVGtry to3462TOto disentangle3463VVdisentangle what3464WPwhat would3465MDwould be3466VBbe available3467JJavailable for3468INfor us3469PPus to3470TOto review3471VVreview legally3472RBlegally versus3473INversus what3474WPwhat would3475MDwould then3476RBthen be3477VBbe left3478VVNleave to3479TOto the3480DTthe Board3481NPBoard ,3482,, the3483DTthe discretionary3484JJdiscretionary decision3485NNdecision ,3486,, if3487INif ,3488,, in3489INin fact3490NNfact ,3491,, we3492PPwe review3493VVPreview the3494DTthe case3495NNcase for3496INfor abuse3497NNabuse of3498INof discretion3499NNdiscretion in3500INin our3501PP$our legal3502JJlegal review3503NNreview .3504SENT. [MR. HUGHES]3505LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well3506UHWell ,3507,, Your3508PP$your Honor3509NPHonor ,3510,, where3511WRBwhere I3512PPI think3513VVPthink abuse3514NNabuse of3515INof discretion3516NNdiscretion comes3517VVZcome in3518INin is3519VBZbe not3520RBnot at3521INat the3522DTthe question3523NNquestion of3524INof ...3525:... of3526INof diligence3527NNdiligence .3528SENT. It3529PPit comes3530VVZcome in3531RPin with3532INwith whether3533INwhether or3534CCor not3535RBnot the3536DTthe Board3537NPBoard chooses3538VVZchoose to3539TOto reopen3540VVreopen the3541DTthe case3542NNcase .3543SENT. The3544DTthe Board3545NPBoard ...3546:... that3547WDTthat is3548VBZbe a3549DTa decision3550NNdecision that3551IN/thatthat we3552PPwe agree3553VVPagree the3554DTthe Board3555NPBoard has3556VHZhave discretion3557NNdiscretion as3558INas to3559TOto whether3560INwhether or3561CCor not3562RBnot to3563TOto reopen3564VVreopen the3565DTthe case3566NNcase .3567SENT. I3568PPI think3569VVPthink diligence3570NNdiligence ,3571,, as3572INas this3573DTthis Court3574NPCourt has3575VHZhave said3576VVNsay in3577INin Bank3578NPBank of3579INof Columbia3580NPColumbia ,3581,, and3582CCand I3583PPI can3584MDcan cite3585VVcite five3586CDfive more3587JJRmore cases3588NNScase ,3589,, that3590WDTthat is3591VBZbe a3592DTa pure3593JJpure question3594NNquestion of3595INof law3596NNlaw .3597SENT. But3598CCbut ,3599,, when3600WRBwhen the3601DTthe Board3602NPBoard decides3603VVZdecide a3604DTa case3605NNcase in3606INin a3607DTa different3608JJdifferent way3609NNway and3610CCand says3611VVZsay we3612PPwe 're3613VBPbe deciding3614VVGdecide this3615DTthis as3616INas a3617DTa matter3618NNmatter of3619INof discretion3620NNdiscretion ,3621,, we3622PPwe 're3623VBPbe issuing3624VVGissue what3625WPwhat the3626DTthe Board3627NPBoard calls3628VVZcall a3629DTa discretionary3630JJdiscretionary denial3631NNdenial ,3632,, that3633WDTthat is3634VBZbe the3635DTthe sort3636NNsort of3637INof issue3638NNissue that3639WDTthat is3640VBZbe not3641RBnot subject3642JJsubject to3643TOto judicial3644JJjudicial review3645NNreview .3646SENT. And3647CCand when3648WRBwhen the3649DTthe Board3650NPBoard does3651VVZdo a3652DTa discretionary3653JJdiscretionary denial3654NNdenial ,3655,, that3656WDTthat is3657VBZbe very3658RBvery clear3659JJclear on3660INon the3661DTthe face3662NNface of3663INof it3664PPit .3665SENT. And3666CCand let3667VVlet me3668PPme just3669RBjust provide3670VVPprovide an3671DTan example3672NNexample .3673SENT. We3674PPwe ...3675:... we3676PPwe just3677RBjust went3678VVDgo and3679CCand found3680VVDfind a3681DTa recent3682JJrecent BIA3683NPBia decision3684NNdecision from3685INfrom November3686NPNovember 13687CD1 ,3688,, 20193689CD@card@ .3690SENT. This3691DTthis is3692VBZbe Matter3693NPMatter of3694INof CASD3695NPCASD .3696SENT. And3697CCand the3698DTthe Board3699NPBoard said3700VVDsay "3701``" we3702PPwe conclude3703VVPconclude that3704IN/thatthat Respondent3705NNrespondent does3706VVZdo not3707RBnot merit3708VVmerit a3709DTa favorable3710JJfavorable exercise3711NNexercise of3712INof discretion3713NNdiscretion because3714INbecause '3715''' the3716DTthe equities3717NNSequity in3718INin his3719PP$his case3720NNcase are3721VBPbe insufficient3722JJinsufficient to3723TOto outweigh3724VVoutweigh his3725PP$his history3726NNhistory of3727INof very3728RBvery serious3729JJserious and3730CCand violent3731JJviolent criminal3732JJcriminal conduct3733NNconduct .3734SENT. '3735''' "3736``" When3737WRBwhen the3738DTthe Board3739NPBoard is3740VBZbe exercising3741VVGexercise its3742PP$its discretion3743NNdiscretion to3744TOto make3745VVmake a3746DTa discretionary3747JJdiscretionary denial3748NNdenial ,3749,, it3750PPit says3751VVZsay so3752RBso expressly3753RBexpressly on3754INon the3755DTthe face3756NNface of3757INof the3758DTthe opinion3759NNopinion .3760SENT. We3761PPwe agree3762VVPagree that3763DTthat none3764NNnone of3765INof that3766DTthat exercise3767NNexercise of3768INof discretion3769NNdiscretion when3770WRBwhen appropriate3771JJappropriate is3772VBZbe reviewable3773JJreviewable ,3774,, and3775CCand that3776WDTthat could3777MDcould be3778VBbe the3779DTthe case3780NNcase with3781INwith a3782DTa motion3783NNmotion to3784TOto reopen3785VVreopen ,3786,, where3787WRBwhere the3788DTthe Board3789NPBoard does3790VVZdo have3791VHhave discretion3792NNdiscretion .3793SENT. But3794CCbut the3795DTthe Board3796NPBoard did3797VVDdo not3798RBnot exercise3799VVexercise that3800DTthat discretion3801NNdiscretion in3802INin this3803DTthis case3804NNcase .3805SENT. It3806PPit found3807VVDfind that3808IN/thatthat he3809PPhe was3810VBDbe ineligible3811JJineligible for3812INfor ...3813:... [JUSTICE KAGAN]3814LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Mr3815NPMr .3816SENT. Hughes3817NPHughes ,3818,, I3819PPI mean3820VVPmean ,3821,, I3822PPI think3823VVPthink the3824DTthe question3825NNquestion that3826IN/thatthat Justice3827NPJustice Gorsuch3828NPGorsuch asked3829VVNask is3830VBZbe a3831DTa very3832RBvery broad3833JJbroad one3834CDone ,3835,, and3836CCand it3837PPit 's3838VBZbe ...3839:... it3840PPit 's3841VBZbe with3842INwith respect3843NNrespect not3844RBnot just3845RBjust to3846TOto the3847DTthe diligence3848NNdiligence but3849CCbut to3850TOto all3851PDTall these3852DTthese other3853JJother questions3854NNSquestion that3855IN/thatthat you3856PPyou think3857VVPthink should3858MDshould end3859VVend up3860RPup being3861VBGbe reviewable3862JJreviewable ,3863,, like3864INlike the3865DTthe ones3866NNSone that3867IN/thatthat I3868PPI mentioned3869VVDmention ,3870,, which3871WDTwhich sound3872VVPsound awfully3873RBawfully factual3874JJfactual ,3875,, you3876PPyou know3877VVPknow ,3878,, extreme3879JJextreme cruelty3880NNcruelty ,3881,, whether3882INwhether there3883EXthere is3884VBZbe unusual3885JJunusual hardship3886NNhardship ,3887,, whether3888INwhether there3889EXthere 's3890VBZbe changed3891JJchanged country3892NNcountry conditions3893NNScondition .3894SENT. All3895DTall of3896INof those3897DTthose are3898VBPbe reviewed3899VVNreview generally3900RBgenerally with3901INwith a3902DTa highly3903RBhighly deferential3904JJdeferential standard3905NNstandard .3906SENT. And3907CCand ...3908:... and3909CCand that3910WDTthat suggests3911VVZsuggest that3912DTthat ...3913:... that3914DTthat ...3915:... that3916DTthat ...3917:... that3918IN/thatthat everybody3919NNeverybody 's3920VBZbe aware3921JJaware that3922IN/thatthat most3923JJSmost of3924INof the3925DTthe work3926NNwork is3927VBZbe being3928VBGbe done3929VVNdo at3930INat the3931DTthe factual3932JJfactual level3933NNlevel and3934CCand the3935DTthe application3936NNapplication of3937INof the3938DTthe legal3939JJlegal standard3940NNstandard at3941INat the3942DTthe end3943NNend is3944VBZbe ...3945:... is3946VBZbe ...3947:... is3948VBZbe not3949RBnot where3950WRBwhere the3951DTthe action3952NNaction is3953VBZbe .3954SENT. And3955CCand given3956VVNgive what3957WPwhat Justice3958NPJustice Ginsburg3959NPGinsburg was3960VBDbe saying3961VVGsay about3962INabout Congress3963NPCongress 's3964POS's intent3965NNintent here3966RBhere ,3967,, which3968WDTwhich was3969VBDbe pretty3970RBpretty clearly3971RBclearly to3972TOto withdraw3973VVwithdraw review3974NNreview power3975NNpower from3976INfrom large3977JJlarge categories3978NNScategory of3979INof cases3980NNScase ,3981,, except3982INexcept the3983DTthe ones3984NNSone that3985WDTthat were3986VBDbe principally3987RBprincipally legal3988JJlegal in3989INin quality3990NNquality ,3991,, you3992PPyou know3993VVPknow ,3994,, why3995WRBwhy ...3996:... why3997WRBwhy does3998VVZdo n't3999RBn't that4000WDTthat suggest4001VVPsuggest that4002IN/thatthat you4003PPyou 're4004VBPbe putting4005VVGput too4006RBtoo much4007RBmuch in4008INin this4009DTthis reviewable4010JJreviewable basket4011NNbasket ?4012SENT? [MR. HUGHES]4013LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well4014UHWell ,4015,, Your4016PP$your Honor4017NPHonor ,4018,, to4019TOto the4020DTthe extent4021NNextent those4022DTthose questions4023NNSquestion ,4024,, as4025INas you4026PPyou say4027VVPsay ,4028,, are4029VBPbe driven4030VVNdrive principally4031RBprincipally by4032INby the4033DTthe facts4034NNSfact and4035CCand the4036DTthe legal4037JJlegal work4038NNwork is4039VBZbe only4040RBonly doing4041VVGdo a4042DTa little4043JJlittle tail4044NNtail at4045INat the4046DTthe end4047NNend ,4048,, then4049RBthen that4050DTthat would4051MDwould be4052VBbe true4053JJtrue on4054INon appeal4055NNappeal as4056INas well4057RBwell .4058SENT. The4059DTthe legal4060JJlegal work4061NNwork would4062MDwould not4063RBnot be4064VBbe doing4065VVGdo a4066DTa whole4067JJwhole lot4068NNlot ,4069,, and4070CCand the4071DTthe decisions4072NNSdecision might4073MDmight be4074VBbe established4075VVNestablish by4076INby the4077DTthe facts4078NNSfact that4079WDTthat would4080MDwould be4081VBbe found4082VVNfind by4083INby the4084DTthe Board4085NPBoard and4086CCand would4087MDwould not4088RBnot be4089VBbe reviewable4090JJreviewable .4091SENT. But4092CCbut let4093VVlet me4094PPme provide4095VVprovide an4096DTan example4097NNexample where4098WRBwhere I4099PPI think4100VVPthink it4101PPit is4102VBZbe heavily4103RBheavily factual4104JJfactual ,4105,, but4106CCbut I4107PPI think4108VVPthink we4109PPwe would4110MDwould say4111VVsay that4112DTthat review4113NNreview would4114MDwould be4115VBbe a4116DTa question4117NNquestion of4118INof law4119NNlaw .4120SENT. Assume4121VVassume for4122INfor a4123DTa moment4124NNmoment in4125INin an4126DTan asylum4127NNasylum case4128NNcase there4129RBthere 's4130VBZbe a4131DTa question4132NNquestion of4133INof past4134JJpast persecution4135NNpersecution ,4136,, which4137WDTwhich is4138VBZbe very4139RBvery important4140JJimportant in4141INin asylum4142NNasylum cases4143NNScase .4144SENT. Persecution4145NNpersecution is4146VBZbe generally4147RBgenerally defined4148VVNdefine as4149INas a4150DTa threat4151NNthreat to4152TOto one4153CDone 's4154POS's life4155NNlife or4156CCor freedom4157NNfreedom ,4158,, and4159CCand past4160JJpast persecution4161NNpersecution creates4162VVZcreate a4163DTa presumption4164NNpresumption of4165INof future4166JJfuture persecution4167NNpersecution .4168SENT. The4169DTthe Board4170NPBoard takes4171VVZtake a4172DTa case4173NNcase .4174SENT. They4175PPthey properly4176RBproperly state4177VVPstate that4178DTthat standard4179NNstandard .4180SENT. Then4181RBthen they4182PPthey find4183VVPfind these4184DTthese facts4185NNSfact :4186:: An4187DTan individual4188NNindividual was4189VBDbe imprisoned4190VVNimprison in4191INin a4192DTa particular4193JJparticular country4194NNcountry for4195INfor a4196DTa decade4197NNdecade because4198INbecause of4199INof their4200PP$their membership4201NNmembership in4202INin a4203DTa political4204JJpolitical party4205NNparty .4206SENT. That4207DTthat is4208VBZbe a4209DTa classic4210JJclassic case4211NNcase of4212INof persecution4213NNpersecution .4214SENT. But4215CCbut then4216RBthen the4217DTthe Board4218NPBoard concludes4219VVZconclude :4220:: This4221DTthis individual4222NNindividual was4223VBDbe not4224RBnot subject4225JJsubject to4226TOto past4227JJpast persecution4228NNpersecution .4229SENT. Well4230UHwell ,4231,, what4232WPwhat do4233VVPdo you4234PPyou do4235VVPdo with4236INwith that4237DTthat case4238NNcase ?4239SENT? The4240DTthe Board4241NPBoard said4242VVDsay that4243IN/thatthat they4244PPthey properly4245RBproperly ...4246:... they4247PPthey identified4248VVDidentify the4249DTthe proper4250JJproper standard4251NNstandard ,4252,, they4253PPthey found4254VVDfind the4255DTthe facts4256NNSfact ,4257,, and4258CCand usually4259RBusually the4260DTthe facts4261NNSfact are4262VBPbe going4263VVGgo to4264TOto be4265VBbe dispositive4266JJdispositive ,4267,, but4268CCbut there4269RBthere at4270INat the4271DTthe end4272NNend where4273WRBwhere that4274DTthat ...4275:... the4276DTthe ...4277:... the4278DTthe law4279NNlaw issue4280NNissue came4281VVDcome in4282INin was4283VBDbe only4284RBonly a4285DTa very4286RBvery small4287JJsmall part4288NNpart of4289INof the4290DTthe case4291NNcase but4292CCbut turned4293VVDturn out4294RPout to4295TOto be4296VBbe dispositive4297JJdispositive .4298SENT. I4299PPI think4300VVPthink the4301DTthe government4302NNgovernment even4303RBeven agrees4304VVZagree that4305IN/thatthat ,4306,, in4307INin circumstances4308NNScircumstance like4309VVPlike that4310IN/thatthat ,4311,, for4312INfor judicial4313JJjudicial review4314NNreview to4315TOto actually4316RBactually be4317VBbe substantive4318JJsubstantive judicial4319JJjudicial review4320NNreview ,4321,, there4322EXthere would4323MDwould have4324VHhave to4325TOto be4326VBbe review4327NNreview in4328INin that4329DTthat case4330NNcase .4331SENT. And4332CCand we4333PPwe think4334VVPthink that4335WDTthat is4336VBZbe critical4337JJcritical for4338INfor the4339DTthe Court4340NPCourt to4341TOto recognize4342VVrecognize that4343IN/thatthat in4344INin cases4345NNScase like4346INlike that4347DTthat ,4348,, there4349EXthere is4350VBZbe judicial4351JJjudicial review4352NNreview .4353SENT. [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]4354LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] On4355INon the4356DTthe statutory4357JJstatutory history4358NNhistory point4359NNpoint that4360IN/thatthat Justice4361NPJustice Kagan4362NPKagan raised4363VVDraise ,4364,, St4365NPSt .4366SENT. Cyr4367NPCyr involves4368VVZinvolve what4369WPwhat the4370DTthe Court4371NPCourt characterized4372VVDcharacterize as4373INas pure4374JJpure questions4375NNSquestion of4376INof law4377NNlaw .4378SENT. Congress4379NPCongress ,4380,, we4381PPwe know4382VVPknow ,4383,, then4384RBthen comes4385VVZcome in4386INin ,4387,, and4388CCand there4389EXthere are4390VBPbe a4391DTa variety4392NNvariety of4393INof statutes4394NNSstatute ,4395,, as4396INas you4397PPyou 're4398VBPbe aware4399JJaware ,4400,, that4401WDTthat refer4402VVPrefer to4403TOto mixed4404JJmixed questions4405NNSquestion ,4406,, but4407CCbut Congress4408NPCongress in4409INin this4410DTthis statute4411NNstatute does4412VVZdo not4413RBnot refer4414VVrefer specifically4415RBspecifically to4416TOto mixed4417JJmixed questions4418NNSquestion .4419SENT. So4420RBso ,4421,, if4422INif you4423PPyou put4424VVDput those4425DTthose two4426CDtwo things4427NNSthing together4428RBtogether ,4429,, you4430PPyou would4431MDwould lean4432VVlean toward4433INtoward reading4434VVGread this4435DTthis statute4436NNstatute to4437TOto refer4438VVrefer to4439TOto what4440WPwhat one4441PPone might4442MDmight call4443VVcall pure4444JJpure questions4445NNSquestion of4446INof law4447NNlaw .4448SENT. That4449DTthat 's4450VBZbe the4451DTthe government4452NNgovernment 's4453POS's argument4454NNargument .4455SENT. How4456WRBHow do4457VVPdo you4458PPyou respond4459VVrespond to4460TOto that4461DTthat statutory4462JJstatutory history4463NNhistory ?4464SENT? [MR. HUGHES]4465LOC[MR. HUGHES] A4466DTa few4467JJfew reasons4468NNSreason ,4469,, Your4470PP$your Honor4471NPHonor .4472SENT. First4473RBfirst ,4474,, I4475PPI think4476VVPthink this4477DTthis is4478VBZbe the4479DTthe government4480NNgovernment 's4481POS's three-part4482JJthree-part topology4483NNtopology ,4484,, that4485WDTthat Congress4486NPCongress speaks4487VVZspeak of4488INof mixed4489JJmixed questions4490NNSquestion .4491SENT. And4492CCand I4493PPI think4494VVPthink that4495WDTthat 's4496VBZbe disproven4497JJdisproven by4498INby a4499DTa section4500NNsection of4501INof the4502DTthe REAL4503JJreal ID4504NNid Act4505NNact that4506WDTthat is4507VBZbe just4508RBjust a4509DTa couple4510NNcouple sections4511NNSsection after4512INafter where4513WRBwhere (4514(( 24515LS2 )4516)) (4517(( D4518NPD )4519)) was4520VBDbe created4521VVNcreate ,4522,, and4523CCand that4524IN/thatthat amended4525VVNamend (4526(( b4527LSb )4528)) (4529(( 94530CD9 )4531)) ,4532,, the4533DTthe zipper4534NNzipper clause4535NNclause ,4536,, in4537INin a4538DTa way4539NNway to4540TOto deal4541VVdeal with4542INwith all4543DTall of4544INof the4545DTthe issues4546NNSissue that4547WDTthat arise4548VVParise in4549INin immigration4550NNimmigration ,4551,, and4552CCand there4553RBthere it4554PPit speaks4555VVZspeak of4556INof law4557NNlaw or4558CCor fact4559NNfact .4560SENT. So4561RBso we4562PPwe know4563VVPknow that4564IN/thatthat Congress4565NPCongress often4566RBoften speaks4567VVZspeak of4568INof law4569NNlaw or4570CCor fact4571NNfact to4572TOto be4573VBbe inclusive4574JJinclusive of4575INof the4576DTthe whole4577JJwhole universe4578NNuniverse .4579SENT. But4580CCbut the4581DTthe second4582JJsecond point4583NNpoint is4584VBZbe ,4585,, in4586INin order4587NNorder to4588TOto respond4589VVrespond to4590TOto St4591NPSt .4592SENT. Cyr4593NPCyr ,4594,, what4595WPwhat Congress4596NPCongress knew4597VVDknow or4598CCor was4599VBDbe attempting4600VVGattempt to4601TOto do4602VVdo ...4603:... and4604CCand this4605DTthis is4606VBZbe shared4607JJshared ground4608NNground with4609INwith the4610DTthe government4611NNgovernment ...4612:... was4613VBDbe take4614VVtake the4615DTthe scope4616NNscope of4617INof then4618RBthen existing4619VVGexist habeas4620NNShabea jurisdiction4621NNjurisdiction that4622WDTthat was4623VBDbe occurring4624VVGoccur in4625INin the4626DTthe district4627NNdistrict courts4628NNScourt ,4629,, keep4630VVkeep that4631DTthat scope4632NNscope of4633INof jurisdiction4634NNjurisdiction the4635DTthe same4636JJsame ,4637,, and4638CCand move4639VVmove that4640DTthat jurisdiction4641NNjurisdiction into4642INinto the4643DTthe courts4644NNScourt of4645INof appeals4646NNSappeal for4647INfor petitions4648NNSpetition for4649INfor review4650NNreview under4651INunder Section4652NPSection 12524653CD@card@ .4654SENT. The4655DTthe evidence4656NNevidence there4657EXthere is4658VBZbe unanimous4659JJunanimous that4660IN/thatthat four4661CDfour courts4662NNScourt of4663INof appeals4664NNSappeal following4665VVGfollow St4666NPSt .4667SENT. Cyr4668NPCyr had4669VHDhave looked4670VVNlook at4671INat the4672DTthe ...4673:... that4674DTthat decision4675NNdecision and4676CCand addressed4677VVDaddress the4678DTthe scope4679NNscope of4680INof jurisdiction4681NNjurisdiction .4682SENT. All4683DTall four4684CDfour courts4685NNScourt had4686VHDhave found4687VVNfind that4688IN/thatthat there4689EXthere was4690VBDbe decidedly4691RBdecidedly jurisdiction4692NNjurisdiction to4693TOto resolve4694VVresolve the4695DTthe application4696NNapplication of4697INof law4698NNlaw to4699TOto fact4700NNfact .4701SENT. If4702INif Congress4703NPCongress had4704VHDhave not4705RBnot had4706VHNhave (4707(( 24708LS2 )4709)) (4710(( D4711NPD )4712)) 's4713VBZbe sweep4714NNsweep to4715TOto include4716VVinclude applications4717NNSapplication of4718INof law4719NNlaw to4720TOto fact4721NNfact ,4722,, that4723DTthat habeas4724NNShabea jurisdiction4725NNjurisdiction that4726WDTthat had4727VHDhave been4728VBNbe recognized4729VVNrecognize in4730INin four4731CDfour separate4732JJseparate circuits4733NNScircuit would4734MDwould have4735VHhave been4736VBNbe retained4737VVNretain .4738SENT. And4739CCand then4740RBthen a4741DTa final4742JJfinal point4743NNpoint on4744INon the4745DTthe history4746NNhistory there4747RBthere ,4748,, Your4749PP$your Honor4750NPHonor ,4751,, is4752VBZbe that4753IN/thatthat earlier4754JJRearly drafts4755NNSdraft had4756VHDhave included4757VVNinclude the4758DTthe ...4759:... the4760DTthe term4761NNterm "4762``" pure4763JJpure questions4764NNSquestion of4765INof law4766NNlaw .4767SENT. "4768''" That4769WDTthat drew4770VVDdraw a4771DTa specific4772JJspecific objection4773NNobjection from4774INfrom commentators4775NNScommentator during4776INduring the4777DTthe markup4778NNmarkup process4779NNprocess .4780SENT. And4781CCand after4782INafter that4783DTthat objection4784NNobjection to4785TOto the4786DTthe word4787NNword "4788``" pure4789JJpure "4790''" was4791VBDbe lodged4792VVNlodge ,4793,, Congress4794NPCongress then4795RBthen struck4796VVDstrike that4797IN/thatthat limitation4798NNlimitation and4799CCand this4800DTthis Court4801NPCourt ...4802:... [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]4803LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] But4804CCbut they4805PPthey said4806VVDsay that4807DTthat was4808VBDbe because4809INbecause it4810PPit was4811VBDbe redundant4812JJredundant .4813SENT. [MR. HUGHES]4814LOC[MR. HUGHES] Well4815UHWell ,4816,, that4817WDTthat was4818VBDbe in4819INin the4820DTthe conference4821NNconference report4822NNreport ,4823,, Your4824PP$your Honor4825NPHonor ,4826,, and4827CCand if4828INif this4829DTthis Court4830NPCourt is4831VBZbe going4832VVGgo to4833TOto look4834VVlook to4835TOto the4836DTthe conference4837NNconference report4838NNreport ,4839,, where4840WRBwhere I4841PPI think4842VVPthink this4843DTthis is4844VBZbe an4845DTan area4846NNarea to4847TOto be4848VBbe skeptical4849JJskeptical because4850INbecause what4851WPwhat Congress4852NPCongress actually4853RBactually did4854VVDdo is4855VBZbe far4856RBfar more4857RBRmore probative4858JJprobative ,4859,, but4860CCbut if4861INif the4862DTthe Court4863NPCourt looks4864VVZlook to4865TOto the4866DTthe conference4867NNconference report4868NNreport ,4869,, I4870PPI think4871VVPthink you4872PPyou look4873VVPlook a4874DTa couple4875NNcouple sentences4876VVZsentence later4877RBRlater where4878WRBwhere the4879DTthe Court4880NPCourt ...4881:... where4882WRBwhere the4883DTthe conference4884NNconference report4885NNreport says4886VVZsay what4887WPwhat happens4888VVZhappen with4889INwith mixed4890JJmixed questions4891NNSquestion ,4892,, you4893PPyou review4894VVPreview to4895TOto the4896DTthe extent4897NNextent there4898EXthere are4899VBPbe legal4900JJlegal elements4901NNSelement .4902SENT. We4903PPwe think4904VVPthink that4905IN/thatthat sweeps4906NNSsweep in4907INin our4908PP$our rule4909NNrule .4910SENT. 24911LS2 But4912CCbut ,4913,, again4914RBagain ,4915,, I4916PPI think4917VVPthink when4918WRBwhen the4919DTthe language4920NNlanguage actually4921RBactually appeared4922VVDappear ,4923,, there4924EXthere was4925VBDbe an4926DTan objection4927NNobjection and4928CCand it4929PPit was4930VBDbe withdrawn4931VVNwithdraw .4932SENT. That4933DTthat 's4934VBZbe a4935DTa little4936JJlittle bit4937NNbit more4938RBRmore probative4939JJprobative than4940INthan what4941WPwhat the4942DTthe conference4943NNconference report4944NNreport says4945VVZsay on4946INon the4947DTthe ...4948:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]4949LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] Can4950MDcan you4951PPyou succinctly4952RBsuccinctly tell4953VVtell me4954PPme what4955WPwhat the4956DTthe questions4957NNSquestion of4958INof law4959NNlaw are4960VBPbe in4961INin your4962PP$your two4963CDtwo cases4964NNScase ?4965SENT? [MR. HUGHES]4966LOC[MR. HUGHES] Yes4967NPYes ,4968,, Your4969PP$your Honor4970NPHonor .4971SENT. First4972RBfirst ,4973,, with4974INwith Mr4975NPMr .4976SENT. Guerrero-Lasprilla4977NPGuerrero-Lasprilla ,4978,, the4979DTthe question4980NNquestion is4981VBZbe does4982VVZdo Lugo-Resendez4983NPLugo-Resendez qualify4984VVqualify as4985INas an4986DTan extraordinary4987JJextraordinary circumstance4988NNcircumstance that4989WDTthat would4990MDwould then4991RBthen have4992VHhave the4993DTthe effect4994NNeffect of4995INof affecting4996VVGaffect his4997PP$his ...4998:... his4999PP$his period5000NNperiod of5001INof reasonable5002JJreasonable diligence5003NNdiligence .5004SENT. For5005INfor Mr5006NPMr ...5007:... .5008SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]5009LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] I5010PPI ...5011:... I5012PPI phrased5013VVDphrase it5014PPit differently5015RBdifferently in5016INin my5017PP$my own5018JJown head5019NNhead ,5020,, whether5021INwhether the5022DTthe existence5023NNexistence of5024INof adverse5025JJadverse circuit5026NNcircuit precedent5027NNprecedent serves5028VVZserve as5029INas an5030DTan obstacle5031NNobstacle to5032TOto filing5033VVGfile a5034DTa timely5035JJtimely motion5036NNmotion to5037TOto reopen5038VVreopen .5039SENT. [MR. HUGHES]5040LOC[MR. HUGHES] That's5041NPThat's ...5042:... I5043PPI think5044VVPthink that5045WDTthat 's5046VBZbe just5047RBjust a5048DTa broader5049JJRbroad way5050NNway of5051INof saying5052VVGsay the5053DTthe same5054JJsame question5055NNquestion ,5056,, yes5057UHyes ,5058,, Your5059PP$your Honor5060NPHonor .5061SENT. I5062PPI think5063VVPthink that5064IN/thatthat that5065DTthat is5066VBZbe a5067DTa ...5068:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]5069LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] All5070DTall right5071NNright .5072SENT. [MR. HUGHES]5073LOC[MR. HUGHES] That5074WDTthat is5075VBZbe yes5076UHyes .5077SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]5078LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] And5079CCand Mr5080NPMr .5081SENT. Ovalles5082NPOvalles ?5083SENT? [MR. HUGHES]5084LOC[MR. HUGHES] There5085RBthere ,5086,, I5087PPI think5088VVPthink one5089PPone ...5090:... there5091EXthere are5092VBPbe a5093DTa few5094JJfew questions5095NNSquestion .5096SENT. The5097DTthe principal5098JJprincipal one5099CDone is5100VBZbe ,5101,, is5102VBZbe an5103DTan asserted5104VVNassert period5105NNperiod of5106INof delay5107NNdelay alone5108RBalone a5109DTa basis5110NNbasis in5111INin order5112NNorder to5113TOto find5114VVfind that5115IN/thatthat an5116DTan individual5117NNindividual was5118VBDbe not5119RBnot reasonably5120RBreasonably diligent5121JJdiligent ?5122SENT? Is5123VBZbe that5124DTthat creation5125NNcreation of5126INof a5127DTa per5128FWper se5129FWse rule5130NNrule ?5131SENT? The5132DTthe Sixth5133NPSixth Circuit5134NPCircuit in5135INin the5136DTthe Gordillo5137NPGordillo case5138NNcase ,5139,, pointing5140VVGpoint to5141TOto earlier5142JJRearly Seventh5143NPSeventh Circuit5144NPCircuit precedent5145NNprecedent in5146INin the5147DTthe Pervaiz5148NPPervaiz case5149NNcase ,5150,, said5151VVDsay expressly5152RBexpressly that5153IN/thatthat looking5154VVGlook just5155RBjust to5156TOto the5157DTthe passage5158NNpassage of5159INof time5160NNtime without5161INwithout considering5162VVGconsider other5163JJother factors5164NNSfactor that5165WDTthat suggest5166VVPsuggest a5167DTa person5168NNperson 's5169POS's diligence5170NNdiligence in5171INin the5172DTthe circumstances5173NNScircumstance is5174VBZbe not5175RBnot an5176DTan appropriate5177JJappropriate way5178NNway to5179TOto undertake5180VVundertake the5181DTthe diligence5182NNdiligence inquiry5183NNinquiry .5184SENT. So5185RBso I5186PPI think5187VVPthink that5188IN/thatthat that5189DTthat ...5190:... that5191IN/thatthat case5192NNcase is5193VBZbe ...5194:... is5195VBZbe focused5196VVNfocus on5197INon whether5198INwhether or5199CCor not5200RBnot the5201DTthe Board5202NPBoard 's5203POS's application5204NNapplication of5205INof an5206DTan eight-month5207NNeight-month per5208FWper se5209FWse rule5210NNrule violated5211VVDviolate the5212DTthe underlying5213VVGunderlie principles5214NNSprinciple of5215INof reasonable5216JJreasonable diligence5217NNdiligence .5218SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]5219LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] Mr5220NPMr .5221SENT. Hughes5222NPHughes ,5223,, you5224PPyou have5225VHPhave n't5226RBn't spoken5227VVNspeak much5228RBmuch about5229INabout the5230DTthe presumption5231NNpresumption of5232INof reviewability5233NNreviewability .5234SENT. I5235PPI just5236RBjust have5237VHPhave a5238DTa question5239NNquestion about5240INabout the5241DTthe nature5242NNnature of5243INof that5244DTthat presumption5245NNpresumption ,5246,, and5247CCand I5248PPI ...5249:... I5250PPI guess5251VVPguess I5252PPI would5253MDwould like5254VVlike Mr5255NPMr .5256SENT. Liu5257NPLiu to5258TOto answer5259VVanswer the5260DTthe same5261JJsame question5262NNquestion .5263SENT. Do5264VVPdo you5265PPyou think5266VVPthink that5267IN/thatthat that5268DTthat presumption5269NNpresumption is5270VBZbe a5271DTa presumption5272NNpresumption about5273INabout congressional5274JJcongressional intent5275NNintent ,5276,, or5277CCor do5278VVPdo you5279PPyou think5280VVPthink that5281IN/thatthat that5282DTthat presumption5283NNpresumption is5284VBZbe a5285DTa presumption5286NNpresumption that5287WDTthat 's5288VBZbe meant5289VVNmean to5290TOto reflect5291VVreflect other5292JJother values5293NNSvalue ?5294SENT? [MR. HUGHES]5295LOC[MR. HUGHES] I5296PPI think5297VVPthink it5298PPit 's5299VBZbe ...5300:... it5301PPit 's5302VBZbe both5303DTboth ,5304,, Your5305PP$your Honor5306NPHonor .5307SENT. I5308PPI think5309VVPthink it5310PPit 's5311VBZbe a5312DTa presumption5313NNpresumption of5314INof congressional5315JJcongressional intent5316NNintent ,5317,, but5318CCbut I5319PPI think5320VVPthink it5321PPit 's5322VBZbe also5323RBalso a5324DTa presumption5325NNpresumption that5326WDTthat 's5327VBZbe meant5328VVNmean to5329TOto reflect5330VVreflect the5331DTthe appropriate5332JJappropriate balance5333NNbalance between5334INbetween judicial5335JJjudicial power5336NNpower and5337CCand the5338DTthe administrative5339JJadministrative power5340NNpower because5341INbecause ,5342,, of5343INof course5344NNcourse ,5345,, here5346RBhere ,5347,, if5348INif the5349DTthe Court5350NPCourt finds5351VVZfind that5352IN/thatthat questions5353NNSquestion are5354VBPbe ...5355:... are5356VBPbe factual5357JJfactual ...5358:... lean5359JJlean factual5360JJfactual and5361CCand therefore5362RBtherefore assign5363VVassign legal5364JJlegal work5365NNwork to5366TOto the5367DTthe administrative5368JJadministrative agency5369NNagency ,5370,, the5371DTthe effect5372NNeffect that5373IN/thatthat that5374WDTthat has5375VHZhave is5376VBZbe ceding5377VVGcede authority5378NNauthority from5379INfrom the5380DTthe Article5381NPArticle III5382NPIII courts5383NNScourt to5384TOto the5385DTthe administrative5386JJadministrative courts5387NNScourt to5388TOto have5389VHhave more5390JJRmore authority5391NNauthority to5392TOto be5393VBbe able5394JJable to5395TOto decide5396VVdecide whatever5397WDTwhatever tail5398JJtail legal5399JJlegal aspect5400NNaspect there5401EXthere is5402VBZbe there5403RBthere .5404SENT. So5405RBso I5406PPI think5407VVPthink the5408DTthe presumption5409NNpresumption of5410INof reviewability5411NNreviewability goes5412VVZgo to5413TOto not5414RBnot just5415RBjust a5416DTa congressional5417JJcongressional presumption5418NNpresumption but5419CCbut also5420RBalso a5421DTa separation5422NNseparation of5423INof powers5424NNSpower principle5425NNprinciple .5426SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]5427LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Thank5428VVthank you5429PPyou ,5430,, counsel5431NNcounsel .5432SENT. Mr5433NPMr .5434SENT. Liu5435NPLiu .5436SENT.