Judulang v. Holder

Background

Joel Judulang is a native of the Philippines who entered the United States in 1974 at age eight and lived continuously as a lawful permanent resident. In 1988 he pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, received a six-year suspended sentence, and was placed on probation. In 2005 he pleaded guilty to another offense and DHS started deportation proceedings, charging him with an aggravated felony as a crime of violence based on the old manslaughter conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals applied its 'comparable-grounds' rule and denied Judulang the chance to seek discretionary relief under former §212(c). The Ninth Circuit denied review, creating a split among courts that prompted this Supreme Court decision.

Reasoning

The Court evaluated the BIA’s policy under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. It emphasized that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation when setting policy. The comparable-grounds rule makes eligibility for a waiver depend on an abstract comparison between categories in exclusion and deportation statutes rather than on factors connected to an alien’s fitness to remain in the country. The Court found that this statutory matching is unrelated to the goals of the immigration laws, can turn on the happenstance of prosecutorial charging choices, and therefore is arbitrary and capricious.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, set aside the comparable-grounds approach, and remanded for further proceedings. That means immigrants like Judulang who were denied waivers under that rule may get another chance to seek discretionary relief. The decision requires the immigration board to adopt a rational method, tied to relevant factors, if it chooses to limit waiver eligibility. The ruling does not decide whether any particular alien must be allowed to stay; it simply forbids the Board from using the arbitrary matching rule and leaves room for a reasoned alternative.