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 AR ISSA M ONTE R O SQUETA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70047 Age n c y No. A043-022-178
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 11, 2019 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r M a

rissa M onte R osque ta

pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ s (B IA) fina l orde r of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion ove r R osque ta ’ s c la i m

to de rivative c itiz e nship through he r a doptive pa

re nts, who a

re 

# F IL ED J UN 18 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).natura liz e d Unite d Stat e s c itiz e n s, pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(5). W e have jurisdic tion ove r R osque ta ’ s othe r le ga l a n d c onstitutiona

l c ha lle nge s to the B IA’ s de c ision pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(D). W e re vie w the B IA’ s le ga l
c onc lusions denov o , se e Saldivar v . Se ssions , 877 F.3d 812, 814 (9th C ir. 2017),
and we de ny R o sque ta ’ s pe t ition for re vie w. 1 1. The B IA did not e rr a s a m atte r of la w in de ny i ng R osque ta ’ s c l a im to de rivative Unite d Stat e s c itiz e nship. Pre lim ina rily , in the a

bse nc e of a

ny supporting le g a l a

uthority , we re

je c t he r c onte n tion tha

t he r a doption wa s fina l prior to he r e ighte e n th birthda y . Like wise , we c annot a gre e tha t R osque ta

ga ine d
a utom a t ic c itiz e n s hip through her a dm ission to the Unite d State s on a

n im m e diate
re lative im

m igra n t visa
. W e a lso disc e rn no e rror in the B IA’ s a pplic ation of form e r 8 U.S.C . § 1432(b) (re pe a le d 2000) (whic h the pa rtie s re fe r to a s INA § 321) to R osque ta ’ s de rivative c itiz e nship c la im . Eve n if R o sque ta ’ s a doption wa s fina l prior to he r e ighte e nth birthda

y , this se c tion c ould only

c onfe r c itiz e nship on a

n a d opte d c hild if the “ c hild [wa s] re siding in the Unite d State s at the tim e of natura liz at ion of suc h
a doptive pa

re nts . . . pursua

nt to a la wful a dm i ssion for pe rm ane nt re s ide nc e .” Id.

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd proc e dura l ba c kground, so we re c ite it only

a s ne c e ssa

ry to de c ide R o sque ta ’ s pe tition.

2It is undispute d tha t R osque ta wa s not a pe rm ane nt re side nt a

t the tim e of he r pa re nts’ n a tura l iz a tions in 1980, a nd tha t R osque ta

e nte re d the Unite d State s a s a pe rm ane nt re side nt for the first tim e in 1991. The B IA c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t R osque ta is ine ligiblefor de rivative c itiz e nship through he r a doptive pa

re nts. 2. The B IA did not e rr a s a m atte r of la w in its a pplic ation of 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(h). B e c a

use R o s que ta

e nte re d the Unite d State s a s a pe rm ane nt re side nt, the n c om m itte d a n a ggravate d fe lony , she is ine ligiblefor a wa ive r of ina d m issa bility . R osque ta

a sse rts tha

t this sta tutory sc h e m e is “ arbitra

ry and
c a pric ious” be c a

use non-im

m igra nts who subse que ntly

a djust sta tus m ay se e k
wa ive rs e ve n if the y

have c onvic tions for a ggravat e d fe lonie s, but a lie ns who initia lly e nte r a s im

m igra nts c annot. W e have a lre a dy

a ddre sse d this issue , holding tha t the diffe re n c e in tre a tm e n t is supporte d by a pla i n re a d ing of the sta

tutory te xt a nd “ doe s not le a d to the t y pe of re sult tha

t pe rm its invoc ation of thea bsurdity doc trine .” Se e N

e gre te Ramire z v . Holde r , 741 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th C ir. 2014)
. A thre e -judge pa ne l doe s not ha ve the a bility to re v i sit tha

t holding. 3. R osque ta ’ s re m ova l doe s not viola te the Eighth Am e ndm e nt. The sole
a uthority c ite d in support of this c l a im is a 1958 Supre m e C ourt c a se a ddre ssing forfe iture of pre e xisting c itiz e nship a s a sta tutory c o nse q ue nc e of a

wa rtim e
3de se rtion c onvic tion. Se e Trop v . Dulle s , 356 U.S. 86, 88 (1958). Trop doe s not support Rosque ta ’ s c la i m of c rue l a

nd unusua l punishm e nt. Ninth C irc uit la

w squa re ly a ddre s se s R osque t a ’ s c irc um s ta nc e s a n d holds that “ de porta tion is not ‘ c rue l a

n d unusua l punishm e nt’ e v e n though the ‘ pe na lty ’
m ay be se ve re , ” Brise no v . IN S , 192 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th C ir. 1999), re a soning in pa rt from the Supre m e C ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t de p ortat ion is not punishm e nt,
e ve n if it oc c urs be c a

use of a viola tion of unde rly ing c rim i na l la ws. S e e Re no v . Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination C omm. , 525 U.S. 471 (1999). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4