Juan Llamas-Lopez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MANUEL LLAMAS-LOPEZ, No. 17-70292 Petitioner, Agency No. A024-101-784 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 8, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. Petitioner asks this court to reverse a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) final removal order and remand for further proceedings. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. § 1252. 1. Petitioner first argues that the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to the extent that the statute sets out different grounds for deportation and inadmissibility determinations. To prevail, Petitioner must establish that deportable and inadmissible individuals are similarly situated. Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)). In addition, Petitioner must show that the challenged statutory classification is irrational and must negate every conceivable basis that might support the relevant distinction. See Aguilera- Montero v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1248, 1252 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 764 (9th Cir. 2004)). Aliens in deportation proceedings are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See Alvarez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)). In contrast, although non-citizens who apply for admission may be physically allowed into the country, in the eyes of the law, they are detained at the border and have not yet “entered” the United States. See id. (citing Barrera-Echavarria v. Rison, 44 F.3d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc)). Because deportable aliens and non-citizens seeking admission are not similarly situated, the immigration laws may treat them differently without violating the Constitution. Id. (citing Servin-Espinoza v. Ashcroft, 309 F.3d 1193, 2 1198 (9th Cir. 2002)). As such, Petitioner’s Equal Protection Clause argument fails. In addition, this court has articulated a rational basis for immigration laws that treat aliens in deportation proceedings differently from non-citizens who apply for entry. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam). Congress could have restricted eligibility for immigration relief to aliens who seek admission from abroad to incent deportable non-citizens to leave the country. See id. And “[b]y encouraging such self-deportation, the government could save resources it would otherwise devote to arresting and deporting these aliens.” Id. As ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals