JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. The United States Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry sued the Securities and Exchange Commission and its Chairman, alleging that the Commission’s partial rescission of a prior regulation failed to meet the procedural and substantive demands of the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the Commission, and we affirm.

SILER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Nayanaben Patel¹ entered the United States in March 2000. But exactly when, where, how, and with whom was never conclusively established. She applied for adjustment of status based on her husband’s legal status in the United States but lied about her manner of entry in doing so. She admitted to lying in a statement to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), but then testified in 2019 in a manner that called into question elements of that statement as well. Citing this factual confusion, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied her application for adjustment of status and ordered her removed to India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Because the IJ’s determination was discretionary and protected by statute from judicial review, and because Petitioner has not raised colorable constitutional claims reviewable by this court, we deny the petition for review.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. The First Amendment protects popular and unpopular speech alike. Allan Josephson worked as a professor of psychiatry at a public university’s medical school. After developing an interest in the medical treatment of childhood gender dysphoria, he began publicly discussing his views on that topic. In October 2017, he expressed his thoughts on treating childhood gender dysphoria during a panel discussion sponsored by a conservative think tank. His commentary was unpopular with his coworkers and supervisors. Josephson believes that his superiors retaliated against him for the views he expressed during the panel discussion, ultimately culminating in the nonrenewal of his contract with the university after more than fifteen years of employment. So he sued the individuals that he says violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him.

The defendants argue that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. The district court disagreed, and so do we. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.