Whether the application of a legal standard to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law, or a pure question of fact that may be barred from judicial review

QUESTION PRESENTED Following this Court's judgment in Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015), the Fifth Circuit joined all of its sister circuits in holding that the statutory deadline for filing a motion to reopen a removal order is subject to equitable tolling. Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F. 3d 337 (CA5 2016). In so doing, the Fifth Circuit adopted this Court's standard for equitable tolling from Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct 750 (2016). Thereafter, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of whether a movant (with criminal removability) pursued their rights diligently, thus further dividing a split between the courts of appeals. Penalva v. Sessions, 884 F. 3d 521 (CA5 2018). The question presented here is: 1. Whether the application of a legal standard to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law, or a pure question of fact that may be barred from judicial review. Or, more specifically: 2. Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by §1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.