The Supreme Court ruled against a Georgia-based immigrant who has spent decades in the United States but faces the threat of deportation due to checking the wrong box on a driver's license application.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the 5-4 decision for the majority, but the court's Democratic-appointed justices sided against the majority with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump and wrote the dissent.

JUSTICES WEIGH WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER APPEALS IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS

The majority in the opinion argued the high court does not have the jurisdiction to review factual findings of the Justice Department in immigration removal cases.

"When noncitizens violate those rules, Congress has provided procedures for their removal. At the same time, there is room for mercy: Congress has given the Attorney General power to grant relief from removal in certain circumstances," Barrett wrote.

In 2012, Pankajkumar Patel, an Indian immigrant, was placed in a deportation proceeding before an immigration judge and was charged with being present in the U.S. without admission or parole.

Patel renewed his application for adjustment in his green card status as a defense against deportation. However, the Department of Homeland Security denied the request, arguing the plaintiff was ineligible because he erroneously marked "yes" on a document asking if he was a U.S. citizen despite his claim he marked the citizen box by mistake.

"It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants," Gorsuch wrote in his dissent. "And it is such an unlikely assertion of raw administrative power that not even the agency that allegedly erred, nor any other arm of the Executive Branch, endorses it."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

When justices heard arguments in Patel v. Garland in December, some of the justices discussed that a strong presumption for judicial review should favor Patel, the petitioner, since he has lived in the U.S. for almost 30 years.

The Supreme Court's ruling means the petitioner cannot challenge the DHS determination in court.