Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant, a legal permanent resident, challenged the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which sought to vacate a removal order and compel an immigration judge to consider his waiver application under Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He contended that Section 212(h) violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding legal permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies from waiver eligibility, while allowing other aliens with similar offenses to apply. The court, however, found that his equal protection claim lacked merit and did not address the government's standing argument. Relying on the precedent set in Taniguchi v. Schultz, the court held that there was a rational basis for the statutory distinction between aggravated-felon legal permanent residents and other aliens, thereby upholding the legislation's constitutionality. The district court's decision was affirmed, and it was noted that this ruling is not to be published or used as precedent in other cases, pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Equal Protection Clause and Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant argued that Section 212(h) violated equal protection by excluding legal permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies from waiver eligibility.
Reasoning: He argues that Section 212(h) violates his equal protection rights by excluding legal permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies from eligibility for the waiver, unlike other aliens convicted of similar offenses.
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant sought to use habeas corpus to challenge a removal order and compel review of a waiver application.
Reasoning: Javier Moreno-Estrada appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which sought to vacate his removal order and compel the immigration judge to evaluate his waiver application under Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).
Precedential Value and Citation of Judicial Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not to be published or cited in other court proceedings according to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The district court's judgment is affirmed, and this ruling is not to be published or cited in other court proceedings, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rational Basis Review in Equal Protection Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied rational basis review, finding a legitimate reason for different treatment of legal permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies.
Reasoning: Citing Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2002), the court finds a rational basis for differentiating between aggravated-felon legal permanent residents and other aliens regarding waiver eligibility.