T h e H on or abl e Je d S. Rak of f , Se n i or U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Ju dg e f or * t he So ut hern D i st ri ct of N ew Y o rk, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

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

G ER AR DO R O M ERO -O C HOA , Petitioner ,

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

. No. 08-74277 Ag ency No. A075-660-365

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 Argued and Submitted F e br ua ry 15 , 2 01 3—Pa sa de na , Ca lif or nia Filed Apr il 10, 2013
B e fo re : Ma

rs ha S. B e rzo n a

nd Pa ul J. Watf or d, Cir c uit J udg es, and Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge. *

Opinion by

J udg e WatfordR O M ERO -O C HOA 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 G era

rdo Romero- Oc hoa’s pe tition for revie w of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals’ de cision finding him ine lig ibl e fo r c anc e llatio n o f rem ov a l f or fa ilure to demonstrate g ood moral cha rac ter, due to his conviction and period of inc arc eration for vehicula r manslaughter.
Th e pan el hel d th a t pl a

us ibl e re a so ns su

pp or t 8 U .S. C. § 1101(f) (7)’ s conclusive pres u mption that an individual lacks g ood moral char acte r based on a period of inca rce ration, rat her tha n on the nature of the c riminal conduct, a nd that Co n g r e s s r a ti o n a ll y

c o n c lu d e d

th a t m o s t a li e n s c o n v ic te d of crimes wa rra nting at least six months of incarc eration lack the g ood moral cha

rac ter to wa

rra nt discretionary re l ief fr om remova l. The panel also held that § 1101(f )(7) ’s re liance on periods o f inca

rce ration g ener ated by

state sentenc ing re g ime s th a t are no t un if or m in op e ratio n d id not vio late e qu a l pr ote c tio n p ri nc ipl e s.

CO UN SEL
Sus an E . H ill (a

rgue d), Hill, Piib e & Vi lle g a s, L os An g e le s, California, for

Petitioner.R O M ERO -O C HOA V
. H OL DER 3

J ohn W. Blakele y

(ar g ued), Senior L itigation Counsel; Tony West, Assist ant Attorn ey Gene ral; L eslie McKa

y , Assistant Direc tor, United S tates Department of J ustice, Civil Divis ion, Was hin g ton , D .C. , f

or Re sp on de nt.

OP IN ION WATFORD, Circuit J udg e: Ger ardo Romer o-Oc hoa is a native and citizen of Mexico who first ca

me to the Unit ed States in 1973, when he w as roug hly 18 y ear s old. His wife is a lawful per manent re sident of the Un ite d St a te s, and

thr e e of hi s fi ve c hil dr e n a re U. S. citizens. Mr. R omero’s mother is a lawful permane nt resident of the United States and his young er brother is a U.S. citiz en a s w e ll.
But Mr. Romer o is not a lawf ul permane nt resident; in the ey es of the immig ration laws, he is an “a lien pres en t i n the United States without being admitted or par oled,” a nd is thus subject t o remova l. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6)( A)(i)

. In 2005, the g ov e rnme nt i nit iate d r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t hi m, prompted by

his then-re cent 2004 c onviction for vehicular manslaug hter. Mr. Romer o pleade d g uilty to killi ng a per son wh ile un lawf

ull y dr ivi ngun de r t

he inf lu ence of a lc oh ol i n violation of California P enal Code § 192( c). H e re ceive d a se nte nc e of

16 months in p ri so n a

nd se rv e d a pp ro ximate ly h a l f o f th a tt i m e i nc u s t o dy. Mr. Romero conc eded r emovability and fil ed an application for

canc ellation of removal or, in the alter native, for voluntar

y depar ture. T o b e eligible for

such re lief, Mr. Romero had to show, among othe r thing s, that he is a per sonR O M ERO -O C HOA V
. H OL DER

4 of “g oo dmoral cha

rac ter” and wa s so during the 10-y ear pe ri od imm e diate ly

pr e c e din g his a

pp lic a tio n ( or , in

the c a se of vo luntary

de parture , th e 5- y e ar p e ri od imm e diate ly prec edinghis application). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1) , 1229c(b) (1). The immigr ation judge presidingover Mr . Rome ro ’s remova l proce eding s held that he is st at u t orily ineligible f

or relief beca use he c annot meet th e good mora l char acte r re qu ir e me nt. Con g re ss h a s n ot e xplic itl y de fi ne d wha

t it means to have “g ood moral cha rac ter,” but it has established e ig ht c a te g or ie s o f i nd ivi du a ls who are c on c lus ive ly presumed to lack

g ood moral cha

rac ter. See8 U

. S.C. § 1 1 0 1 ( f )

. M r
. R o m e r o f

a l l s w i th i no n e s u c hc a t e g o r y: individuals who ha v e b ee n “conf ined, as the r esult of conviction, to a p enal inst itution for an ag g reg ate pe riod of one hundre d and eig hty

day s or more” duri n g the per iod for which g ood moral char acte r must be shown. Id. § 1101(f) (7). B e c a u s e M r
. R o m e r o w a s i mp r i s o n e d f o r m o r e th an1 8 0 d ays duringthe re levant time per iod (as a r esult of hi s vehicular mans la ug hte r c onvic tio n) , h e is c on c lus ive ly pre sume d to lack g ood moral char acte r. The immigration judge d enied Mr. Romero canc ellation of re moval and voluntary depar ture on that ba sis , a

nd the B oa

rd of I mmi grati on

Ap pe a ls aff irmed. Mr. Romero does not dispute that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f )(7) prec ludes him from establishing elig ibilit y for c ance llation of remova l or voluntary

depar tur e. But he asks us to decla re § 1 10 1( f) (7 ) f

a c ia lly un c on sti tut ion a l on

the g ro un d th a t it vio late s th e e qu a l pr ote c tio n c omp on e nt of the F if th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. ( Mr. Romero also attac ks § 1101(f) (7) unde r the rubr ic of “ substantive due proc ess,” but he does not adva

nce a ny in d ep endent arguments forR O M ERO -O C HOA V
. H OL DER 5

invalidation under that theor y .) In M r. Romero’s vie w, the c on sti tut ion a l vi c e of

§ 1 10 1( f) (7) is that it

c on c lus ive ly presumes a

n individual to lack g ood moral cha rac ter ba sed solely on the leng th of time serve d i n p ri s on, rathe r than on the nature of the unde rl y i n g criminal conduc t. Given the wide var iation in sent ence s imposed by differ ent States for the same c riminal conduct, Mr. Romero ar g ues, § 1101(f )(7) a llo ws dis pa

rate tr e a tme nt o f s imi larl y sit uate d ind ivi du a ls i n vio latio n o f e qu a l pr ote c tio n p ri nc ipl e s.
B e fo re e xpla ini ng

why we re je c t th is c ha lle ng e , it

is he lpf ul t o is olate the na

rr owpiv ot o f Mr . Ro me ro ’s argume nt. He doe s not contest Congr ess’s authority to order the remova l of t h o s e p r e s e n t i nth is c o un tr y un la w f u ll y , n o r Co n g r e s s’s judgme nt that leniency should be extended to cer tain classes of re movable aliens but not others—f or example, by

offe ring discretionar

y forms of relief like canc ellation of re moval and voluntary depar ture only to those who ca

n show g ood moral char acte r. Se e Fi allo v . B e ll , 430 U.S. 787, 798 (1977) ( such policy judgme nts a

re rese rved to the political branc hes alone ). No r d oe s he co nte st Con g re ss’ s aut ho ri ty to d e c lare that th os e who have committed sufficiently s er ious crimes ar e conclusively

presumed to lac k g ood moral cha rac ter. Mr. Romero’s sole c ontention is that, i n decidingwhich cr imes are su ff ic ie ntl y se ri ou s to w arr ant t hat pr e sumpt ion , Co ng re ss ma y n o t u s e th e le n g th of t ime s e r v e d in c u s to dy a s a p r o xy fo r se ri ou sn e ss. Ins te a d, Mr . Rome ro argue s, Con g re ss m us t us e c on du c t- ba se d c la ssi fi c a tio ns , a s it ha s e ls e wh e re in § 1101(f) , by specify

ing the particula

r criminal o ff

enses which trigge r the c onclusive pre sumption t hat an individual lacks g ood moral cha

rac ter. See 8 U.S.C. § 110 1 (f )(3), (8), (9).R O M ERO -O C HOA V
. H OL DER

6 Our task in evaluating the constitutionalit y of Cong ress’s chosen me thod of desig nating offe nses that re nder a n ali en ineligible f

or re lief is a limi t ed o ne. The sentenc e-ba sed classification drawn by § 1 1 0 1(f) (7) doe s not impl icate a fu nd ame nta l r ig ht o r t arg e t a su sp e c t c la ss, so it i s su bje c t to rational ba sis review. FCC v. Beach Comm c’ns, I nc. , 50 8 U .S. 30 7, 31 3 (19 93 ); Sudomir v. Mc Mahon , 767 F.2d 1456, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1985)

. Such revie w does not provide “a lice nse for courts to judg e the wisdom, f airne ss, or logic of leg islative choice s.” Beac h Commc’ns , 5 08 U. S. at 31 3; see Ma ss. Bd

. of Ret. v. Murgia , 427 U.S. 307, 316–17 (1976) (per curiam). Thus, the question for us is not whether basing ineligibility

on conviction of a specifie d offe nse, as oppose d to sentence leng th, prov ides a super ior means of acc omplishi ng Congres s’s end. See A rmour v. City of In dia na po lis , 13 2 S. Ct. 20 73 , 20 83 (2 01 2) ; Mu rg ia , 4 27 U. S. at 316. We ask only

whether there are “plausible re asons for Congr ess’ a ction,” and if there are , “our inquiry is at a n end.” U. S. R. R. Re t. B d. v . F

rit z , 449 U.S. 166, 179 (1980).
We th ink th e r e ar e p la

u s ib le r e a s o n s s u

p p o rti n g the c la ssi fi c a tio n d

ra wn by § 1 10 1( f) (7 ). Co ng re ss r a tio na lly conclude d that, in most ca s es , aliens who have bee n c onvic te d o f c ri me s se ri ou s e no ug h to warrant at le a st s ix months of incarc eration will l ack t h e g ood moral cha rac ter ne c e ssa ry to w arr ant d isc re tio na ry re lie f f ro m r e mov a l. Congr ess was e ntitled to rely on that judgme nt to create the co n cl u s i v e p re s u mp t i o ner ec t ed b y § 1 1 0 1 (f )( 7 ) e v en th o u gh it may prove over- or under- inclusive in individual cases. See Fi allo , 4 30 U. S. at 79 9; Mathews v. Diaz , 426 U.S

. 67, 83 (1 97 6) ; W

e i n b e r g e r v
. Sa lfi , 422 U.S. 749, 776–77, 781 (1975). Althoug h the conc lusive presump tion denies individuals like Mr. Romer o an opportunity to show that they possess the re quisite goo d moral cha rac ter notwithstandingR O M ERO -O C HOA V
. H OL DER 7

th e i r s e r v i c e o f m o r e th ans i x m o n th s i nc u s t o dy , C o n g r e ss could ra t ionally

conclude that “the e x pense a nd other difficulties of individual determinations justified the inhere nt imprecision of a prophylactic rule.” Sa lfi , 422 U.S. at 777. Whether Cong ress should have dr awn the line at six months in custody , or one year

or ten y ear s, is not for us to s ec o n dg ues s
. Se e Fr itz , 4 49 U. S. at 17 9; Ma the ws , 426 U.S. at 83–84.
All that remains is Mr. Romero’s c ontention that § 1 10 1( f) (7 ) v iol a te s e qu a l pr ote c tio n p ri nc ipl e s b e c a us e it re lie s o n th e pe ri od s o f i nc arcerati on g e ne ra te d b y state sentenc ing r eg imes that are not uniform in ope ration. We do no t th ink thi s aspec t of

§ 1 10 1( f) (7 ) r e nd e rs it i rr a tio na l. Th e re may

we ll b e c a se s in

wh ic h the same un de rl yingc ri me results in a per iod of incar cer ation of seve n month s in one State but only

five months in anot her. B ut that sort of disparity at the marg ins doe s not r ender the cl assi fication invalid under ra

tional basis review

. Se e Mu rg ia , 427 U.S. at 316. Dra wing any line “inevitably require s that some persons who have an almost equally strong claim to favor ed tre atment be placed on diffe rent sides of the line.” Ma the ws , 4 26 U. S. at 8 3 . And we ha

ve held that whe n deter mining which of fe nd e rs sh ou ld b e e lig ibl e fo r i mmi g ratio n r e lie f, Con g re ss may rationally

rely on “the a djudicating foru m’s judgme nt conce rningthe seriousne ss of [an] offe nse.” Rangel-Zuazo v. Holder , 678 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir. 2012) (pe r cur iam). That rema ins true eve n though dif fer ent forums im pose diffe rent sentenc es for

the same of

fense

. Se e Vi e ira Ga rc ìa v . I NS , 239 F.3d 409, 414–15 ( 1st Cir. 2001).
P ETIT ION F OR REVIEW DENIED.