N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ALC OLM B URB ANK,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. KIR STJEN NIELSEN, Se c re t ary , De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity ; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35760 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00292-R M P
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d R OSENTHAL, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
JAN 9 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Le e H. R ose n tha l, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te xa s , sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff M a lc olm B urba nk a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s de c ision dism

issing this a c t ion unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). W e va c ate the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r, re m and, a

nd instruc t

the distric t

c ourt to dism

iss thea c tion for la c k of jurisdic tion. 1. W e la c k— and the distric t c ourt la c ke d— jurisdic tion to re vie w Pla intiff’ s sta tutory c l a im s. The Im

m igrat ion a

nd Na t iona lity Ac t (" INA" ) c le arly

pre c lude s judic ia l re vie w of the Se c re ta ry ’ s " no risk" de te rm inations be c a u se those de te rm i nations fa ll within the Se c re ta ry ’ s " sole and unre vie wa

ble disc re tion." 8 U.S.C . § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). B e c a u se e a c h of Pla intiff’ s sta tutory c la im s
c ha lle nge s how theSe c re ta ry e xe rc ise s tha

t disc re tion, this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w the m . C ity of R ia lto v. W . C oa st Loa ding C orp., 581 F.3d 865, 872–73 (9th C ir. 2009). 1 2. W e la c k— and the distric t c ourt la c ke d— jurisdic tion to re vie w Pla intiff’ s
c la im re ga rding his funda

m e nta l right to marry . Assum ing, without de c iding, tha t the INA pe rm its us to re vie w c olora ble c onstitutiona

l c la i m s, Pla intiff’ s substa ntive due proc e ss c la im

is not a c olora ble one . A non-c itiz e n’ s de porta tion doe s not viola te his or he r fam ily ’ s substa ntive due proc e ss rights. M ora le s-Iz quie rdo v. De p’ t of Hom e la

nd Se c ., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010), ove rrule d in pa rt on

1 The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t Pla intiff wa ive d a

num be r of his sta

t utory c la im s. B e c a

use those c la im s, too, a

re unre v ie wa

b le , we ne e d not c onside r whe the r Pla intiff wa ive d the m .othe r grounds by Ga rfia s-R o drigue z v. Holde r, 702 F.3d 504 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ). Holding otherwise he re would unde rm ine C ongre ss’ ple n ary powe r ove r im m igration. La

ndon v. Pla se nc ia , 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D w ith instr uc tions. The pa rtie s sha l l be ar the i r own c osts on a

ppe a l.

3