“JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court docket. A standard function of our Nation’s advanced system of lawful immigration is obligatory statutory guidelines paired with discretionary exceptions. Government Department companies implement each. Whether or not any given company choice is obligatory or discretionary issues, as a result of Congress has restricted judicial assessment of many discretionary determinations. See 66 Stat. 208, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B). This case entails the Secretary of Homeland Safety’s choice to revoke preliminary approval of a visa petition that Amina Bouarfa, a U. S. citizen, filed on behalf of her noncitizen partner. The Secretary factors to eight U. S. C. §1155 because the supply of the company’s revocation authority; that provision states that the Secretary “might, at any time,” revoke approval of a visa petition “for what he deems to be good and adequate trigger.” The problem we handle right this moment is whether or not revocation underneath §1155 qualifies as a choice “within the discretion of ” the Secretary such that it falls throughout the purview of a separate statute—§1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)—that strips federal courts of jurisdiction to assessment sure discretionary actions. We maintain that it does. … In §1155, Congress granted the Secretary broad authority to revoke an accredited visa petition “at any time, for what he deems to be good and adequate trigger.” Such a revocation is thus “within the discretion of ” the company. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The place §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies, then, it bars judicial assessment of the Secretary’s revocation underneath §1155. Due to this fact, we affirm the judgment of the Court docket of Appeals.”
