T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B L AS R UA NO - MAR T I N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 71377 A ge nc yN o. A 017- 266- 892 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B efo re: T R O T T , G O U L D , an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B l a s R ua no- M a rt i n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of S pa i n, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s r e m ova l or de r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de 

# FI LED OC T 31 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 71377 2 n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , Kha n v. H older , 584 F . 3d 773, 776 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd w e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . R ua no- M a rt i n’ s c ont e nt i on tha tr e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of s e c t i on 304 of

the Il l egal Im m i grat i on R ef orm and Im m i grantR es po nsi bi l i ty A ctof 19 96 , w hi ch e lim in a te d r e lie f

u n d e rf o rm e rs e c tio n 2 1 2 ( c ) o f th e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t, v io la te d h is r ig h t to d u e p r o c e s s is u n a v a ilin g . Se e U ni te d State s v . V

e las c oMe di na , 305 F . 3d 839, 850 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( “ T o the e xt e nthe a nt i c i pa t e d the cont i nu ed avai l abi l i ty of § 21 2(c) re l i ef af t erhi s gui l ty pl ea , hi s e xp ec t at i on s w er e nei ther r ea sonabl e nor se tt l ed un der St . C yr .” ) . R ua no- M a rt i n’ s c ont e nt i on tha tappl i c a t i on of 8 C . F . R . § 1212. 3( f

) ( 4) vi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o equ al prot ec t i on i s a l so un avai l i ng . R uano -M art i n w as i ne l i gi bl e t o appl yf

orr e l i e f unde rf orm e rs e c t i on 212( c ) r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rhe w a s c ha r ge d a s r e m ovabl e unde rthe gr ounds of i na dm i s s i bi l i tyorthe gr ounds of d e p o rtab ility . See U

ni ted States v. Estrada -T orres , 17 9 F . 3d 77 6, 77 9 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) , overruled on other groun ds U ni ted States v. R i ve ra-San chez , 247 F . 3d 905, 909 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( e n banc ) , ( c r i m i na l ba r s t o s e c t i on 212( c ) r e l i e f e na c t e d by s e c t i on 440( d) of

the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l tyA c tof 1996 ( “A E D P A ” ) ap p lyto b o th e x c lu d ab le a n d d e p o rtab le a lie n s ) ; s e e al s o 8 C. F. R. § 1212. 3( h) ( 2) ( othe rw i s e e l i gi bl e a l i e ns c onvi c t e d bypl e abe tw e e n A pr i l 24, 1996,06- 71377 3 and A pri l 1, 19 97 , m ayappl y f or re l i ef un der f orm erse ct i on 21 2(c) of the A ct , “ as am ended b y s ec t i on 44 0(d) of [A E D P A ] ”) . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .