N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AB IGAIL J. ALFANO, AKA Abigail Joy Ga jone ra , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-70608 Age n c y No. A078-708-575 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 July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Abiga il J. Alfa

no, a native and c itiz e n of the Philippine s, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge s’ orde r de ny ing he r a pplic at ion for a

wa ive r of ina dm issibility unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h). Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 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).re vie w de novo que stions of la w a nd c onstitutiona

l c la im s. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not e rr in de ny ing Alfa n o’ s a pplic ation for a

wa ive r unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h), whe re Alfa no wa s not a

n arriving a lie n se e k ing a dm ission in re m ova l proc e e d ings a

n d wa s not e ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus. S e e Mtoc he d v . Ly nc h , 786 F.3d 1210, 1217-18 (9th C ir. 2015) (de fe rring to 8 C .F.R . § 1245.1(f), whic h lim its a

§ 1182(h) wa ive r to those“ a pply ing or re a

pply ing for a

visa , for a dm ission to the

Unite d Stat e s, or for a d

justm e nt of sta

tus,” and de fe rring to the B IA’ s de c ision in Matte r of Rivas , 26 I. & N. De c . 130, 132-35 (B IA 2013), tha t a § 1182(h) wa ive r is not a

va i la ble on a “ sta nd a lone ” ba sis for de p orta ble a lie ns in re m ova l proc e e d ings). Alfa no c onte n d s tha

t she should ha

ve be e n tre at e d a s an a

pplic ant for a dm ission be c a

use she de pa

rte d the Unite d

Stat e s a nd wa s gra

nte d a d m ission upon re -e ntry , a fte r she c om

m itte d the offe nse that re nde re d he r re m ova ble . This argum e nt is without m

e rit, whe re she ha d not y e t be e n c onvic te d and did not adm it he r offe nse at the tim e of he r re -e ntry and, the re fore , the De pa

rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity would ha ve ha d no ba sis to c ha

rge he r a s ina d

m i ssible upon re -e ntry . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(I) (“ [A] ny a lie n c o nvic te d of, or who a dm i ts ha ving 1 4 - 7 0 6 0 8 2c om

m itte d, or who a dm its c om m itting a c ts whic h c onstitute the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of . . . a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude. . . is ina dm issible .” ). As to he r e qua l prote c tion c la im , Alfa no ha s not a de quate ly

shown tha

t C ongre ss or the a g e nc y

la c ke d a rationa l ba sis for limi ting theava ila bility of the

“ sta nd-a lone ” wa ive r to a

p plic ants for a d

m ission, a s oppose d

to those se e king re lie f from

re m ova l a fte r ha

ving be e n a dm itte d. S

e e , e .g., Masnausk

as v . Gonzale s , 432 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ Whe n c h a lle nge d unde r e qua l prote c tion, line -drawing de c isions m a de by C o ngre ss or the Pre side nt in the c onte xt of im

m igration a

nd na tura liz ation m

ust be uphe ld if the y

are rationa lly re late d to a

le gitim ate gove rnm e nt purpose . ” (c ita t ion, quota

tion m arks, a

nd a lte ra tions omi tte d)). B e c a use the a ge nc y

did not e rr in de ny ing Alfa no’ s wa ive r a

pplic at ion, he r c onte ntion tha

t the de nia l of the wa ive r wa s a due proc e ss viola

tion a lso fa ils. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000). W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Alfa no’ s une x ha

uste d c o nte ntion tha

t the a ge nc y fa ile d to c om

ply with notic e and c om

m e nt rule m aking in prom ulga ting 8 C .F.R . § 1245.1(f). Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 0 6 0 8 3