T h e pan el u nani m o usl y c on cl u des t h i s c as e i s s u i t abl e f or de ci s i on * w itho u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. See Fed

. R

. A p p . P

. 34 (a)( 2 ).

F OR P UB LIC AT ION 

### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

H Y U K J OON L IM , Petitioner ,

v. E RI C H. H OL DER , J R ., Attorney Ge ne ra l, Respondent

. No. 09-70042 Ag ency No. A072-951-683

OPI NI ON

On Petition for Review of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls Submit ted Fe bruar

y 6, 2013 * Pa sa de na , Ca lif

or nia Filed Ma rch 26, 2013 B e fo re : D iarm

uid F . O ’S c ann la in, Ste ph e n S. Tr ott , and Ric ha rd R. C lif ton , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Op ini on by Judg e Tr ottL I M V . H OL DER

2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **

Im m igration The pa nel denied H y

uk J oon L im’s petition for r eview of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n Appe a ls’ de c isi on fi nd inghim ine lig ibl e for c anc e llatio n o f r e mov a l f or fa ilure to e sta

bli sh the re quisite co n tinuous phy sical pre sence in the United State s. The pa nel held that L im did not qualify for the continuous prese nce ex ception ava ilable to aliens who ser ved in ac tive duty in t he Un ite d S tates A rm e d F or c e s, un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 9b (d )( 3) , b e c a

us e he wa s a

bs e nt f ro m th is c ountr

y wh ile completing mandatory

milit ary service in t he South Korea n arme d forc es. The panel held that Congr ess had a r at ional basis for limiting the e x ception to aliens ser ving in our m i l i t ar y.

CO UN SEL Michae l S. C abre ra, L aw Of fice s of Michae l S. Cabrera , Huntington Par

k, California, for

Petitioner. Susa n Be nnett Gre en, United States De partment of Justice, Offic e of Immigra

tion L itigation, Washing ton, D

. C

. , for Re sp on de nt.L I M V . H OL DER 3 OP IN ION TROTT, Circuit J udg e: Hy u k Jo o n L im , a n a ti v e an d c it iz e n o f So u th Kore a, petitions for revie w of a decision by

the B o ar d of I mmigration Appeals (“ Boa rd”) order ing his re moval from the United States beca

use he violated the terms of his student visa. L im contends th e Bo ar d err ed in conc luding he was statutorily ineligible f

or ca ncellation of r emoval bec ause he did no t hav e the re qu ir e d ten y e ars of c on tin uo us pr e se nc e in the U n it e d

St a te s imme d iate ly

p r e c e d in g h is a

p p li c ati o n for relief , as re quired by

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), ( d)(1)

. We have jur isd ic tio n ov e r thi s ti me ly pe tit ion purs ua nt t o 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , w h i c hw e d e n y. I L im claims he first enter ed the United Sta t es i n 1989, at the a g e o f

1 8

. H e r e tu

r n e d to So u th K o r e a f r o m D e cembe r 1994 to Aug u s t 1 9 9 8 and ser ved in its mil itary

from May 1995 to May 1998. He c ame ba ck fr om South Korea in 2001 on a visitor ’s v i s a, which he c onverte d to a student visa on J uly 16 , 2 0 0 4 . By

not staying in sc hool and by taking a job a t a sto re in L os An g e le s, he vio late d th e te rm s o f h is s tatus

. L im was serve d with a Notice to Appe ar on F ebrua ry 27, 20 06 , a nd pr oc e e din g s c omm e nc e d o n M arc h 2 , 2 00 6. L im conce des the truth of the se fa cts. To have acc rued te n y ear s of continuous phy sical presence befor e being se rved w ith the Notice to Appear, he would have neede d to be in the United States since F ebrua

ry 27, 2006.L I M V . H OL DER

4 II L im c oncede d that he could not satisfy the “c o ntinuous prese nce” demands of this statute beca use he had been out of the country

from 1994 to 1998 while completingmandatory milit ary service in the S o u t h Kore an ar med forc es. In an a tte mpt to o ve rc ome thi s d e fi c ie nc y , h e argue d th a t hi s absenc e shoul d not count aga inst him because of “the unique mil ita ry re latio ns hip be tw e en th e Un ite d St a te s a nd South Kore a,” c iting a 1953 mutual de fense treaty betwee n the two a lli e s. I n s up po rt

of his c on te nti on , he inv ok e d “ du e pr oc e ss” and by implication the rig ht to e qual protec tion under the law

. He a sserted that he qu alified for the spec ial continuous pr e s e n c e e xc e p ti o nav a il a b le to h o n o r a

b ly d is c h ar g e d

a li ens wh o h ave se rv e d f

or t wen ty -f

our m on ths “ in a c tiv e duty status in the Armed F orce s o f t h e United States.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(3). III Cance llation of removal is a f orm of dis cr etionary

relief which does not g ive rise to a “ su b s t an tive interest prote cted by the Due Proc ess Clause.” Mu noz v . A sh c ro ft , 339 F. 3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2003). I n s o fa r as L im asserts that Congr ess somehow violated c onstitut ional commands whe n it limit ed the e x ception upon which he relies to aliens se rving in t he U.S . milit ary , w e re vie w c on g re ssi on a l po lic y on ly to de te rm ine wh e the r i t r a tio na ll y a dv anc e s a le g iti mate g overnme nt purpose. Reno v. Flores , 507 U.S. 292, 305–06 (1993). More over, the Suprem e C o urt has stated that “over no c oncei vab le su

bje c t is the le g isl a tiv e po we r o f C on g re ss m o r e c o mp l e t e t h ani ti s o v e r ” t h e a dm i s s i o no f a l i e ns . Oce anic Steam Navigation Co . v. Stranahan , 214 U.S. 320, 3 3 9 ( 1 90 9) ; acc or

d S ha ug hn essy v . U nite d S tates e xre l.L I M V . H OL DER 5

Meze i , 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953) ( “[T] he powe r to expel or exclude aliens [is] a funda mental s o v ereig n attribute . . . larg ely immune from judicial con t rol.”). L im asserted that service in a

fo re ig n mi lit ary

“ c on tr oll e d b y

the U. S. s ho uld coun t a s s e r

v ic e in th e U

. S. mi li ta

r y . ” T h e B o ar d w as not p e r s u a d e d

b y L i m ’ s n o v e l t h e o r

y. IV Th e g ov ernme nt a dv anc e s an una ssa ila ble argume nt i n su pp or t of the ratio na l ba si s of the statut e ’s lim itatio n to aliens ser ving in our

milit ary . The g overnme nt points out that al i ens ser ving in our

milit ary are available for de ploy ment wher ever they are neede d, wher eas an alien se rving in the South Korean mil itary — or for that matter a ny other military — h a s not be e n sho wn

to b e ava ila

ble fo r d e plo y

me nt at w ill by our g overnme nt. Thus, the limited ex ception fa shioned by Congr ess func tions as a valuable quid pro quo i n re t u rn for assistance in our national def ense. The rul e advoc ated by L im w ou ld n ot. I n th is v e in, the g ov ernm e nt d ir e c ts u s to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1439 and 1440, which m ake naturalization ava ila ble on pr e fe re nti a l te rm s to pe rs on s wh o h a ve se rv e d in our a rm e d f or c e s. Th e Sup re me Court ha s ind ic a te d th a t th is pref ere nce e x presse s “the g ratitude of the country toward aliens who re nder se rvice in its armed forc es in its defense.” Tak Shan Fong v. United States , 359 U.S. 102, 107 (1959). We suppose that Congr ess as a policy matter could extend the privileg e L im se eks to pe rsons serving in the arme d forc es of our allies, but the short and c onclu s ive answe r is that it has not done so. I n wh a t amo u n ts to to rtu r e d lo g ic , L im a s s e rts th a t our opinion in Daberk

ow v. United States , 581 F.2d 785 ( 9th Cir. 1978), s u p p o rts his argument. We held in Daberk ow thatL I M V . H OL DER

6 Un ite d St a te s c iti zen -r e lativ e s o f a Ge rm an o ff

ic e r k ill e d in joi nt mil ita

ry e xer c ise s wi th the Un ite d State s c ould no t use the Fe dera l Tort C laims Act (FTCA) to sue the United States g o v ernme nt. Id. at 788. In so holding, we pointed out that no t e ve n U nit e d St a te s mi li tar y pe rs onne l c an f

oll owthi s le g a l path a g a ins t our g ov e rnme nt. L im ill og ic a lly claims t h a ti tf o l l o w s f r om Daberkow that he, as a fore ign c itiz en wh o w a s for

me rl y in a no the r n a tio n’ s mi lit ary , is e nti tle d to equal c onstitut ional footing with ali en s in our arme d forc es who ar e not able to sue our g overnme nt using the F TCA, and that th e re fo re , h e is e nti tle d to the same imm ig ratio n b e ne fi t as his supposed counter parts — al l as a matter of c on sti tut ion a l im pera tive . Su ff ic e it t o s ay

that w e fi nd

thi s fa n ci fu l ar gu m en tt o b e u n co n v i n ci n g. P ETIT ION DENIED.