N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M AR C O C UAHTZIN SARINANA GUR IDI, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-71532 B .I.A. No. A059-718-823 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 Argue d Fe brua

ry 9, 2015; Re subm itte d

M ay 28, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and WARDLAW , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd SHEA, ** Se nior Distric t Judge . Pe titione r M a

rc o C ua htz in Sa rina na Guridi, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o who wa s a

le g a l pe rm ane nt re side nt (" L PR " ) of the Unite d State s, se e k s re vie w of a fina l orde r of re m ova l issue d by the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (" B IA" ). An



# FIL E D JUN 01 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion 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 Honora

ble Edwa rd F. She a , Se n ior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of W a s hington, sitting by de signa t ion.im

m igration judge(" IJ" ) found Pe titione r ina dm issiblebe c a use Pe titione r ha d a dm itte d , at the C a le xic o W e st Port of Entry , tha t he posse sse d m arijua

na in the Unite d State s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II) (providing tha t a n a lie n is ina d m issibleif the a lie n a dm its ha v ing c om m i tte d a c o ntrolle d substa

n c e offe nse or having c o m

m itte d a n a c t c onstituting the

e sse ntia l e l e m e nts of suc h a n offe nse ). The B IA dism isse d Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l, c onc luding tha

t the e vide nc e tha

t the gove rnm e nt submitte d

— a sworn sta

te m e nt signe d by

Pe titione r—

wa s re lia ble and that the IJ did not e rr in finding Pe titione r not c re dible . 1. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r whe the r Pe titione r wa s prope rly pla c e d in re m o va l proc e e dings a s an arriving a lie n, se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(C )(v) (de fining the

c irc um sta

nc e s unde r whic h a

n a lie n is re ga

rde d a s se e k ing a dm ission), be c a

use Pe titione r did not e x ha ust this c la i m

be fore the B IA. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1) (limiting c ourts’ jurisdic t ion to c la im s tha t we re e xha

uste d a dm inistra

tive ly ). C o ntra

ry to Pe titione r’ s a sse rtion, this c la im is not " akin to" an a sse rtion of c itiz e nship, whic h c an be ra i se d at a ny tim e be c a

use it would de

prive the a ge nc y of jurisdic tion a ltoge the r. Whe the r Pe titione r wa s tre a te d a s a n a rriving a lie n or a s a

re m ova ble a lie n, the a ge nc y

ha d jurisdic tion ove r the proc e e ding.

22. For the sa m e re a son, fa ilure to e xha ust the c la im , we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r whe the r the IJ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Id. 3. Pe titione r wa s provide d with a n a de quate de finition of posse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e , 21 U.S.C . § 844(a ), be fore m a k i ng a n a dm ission. Se e In re K–, 7 I. & N. De c . 594, 597 (B . I.A. 1957). C ontra ry to Pe titione r’ s sugge s tion, the de finition did not ne e d to ide ntify the pa rtic ula r Unite d State s C o de se c tion or sta tute at issue , a s tha

t inform a tion is unne c e ssa ry to de fining thec rim e and its e sse ntia l e le m e nts unde rsta nda bly . 4. The re m o va l orde r doe s not viola te Pe titione r’ s right unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt to re c e ive e qua l prote c tion of thela ws. Pe titione r argue s tha t a n LPR who c om m itte d the sa

m e c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse to whic h he a dm itte d, but who ha d re m a ine d in the Unite d State s, would not be re m ova ble , a n d tha t the re is no rationa l re a son to distinguish be twe e n LPR s who le ave the c ountry and atte m

pt to re turn a

nd LPR s who re m a in he re . W e are not pe rsua de d. In light of C ongre ss’ ple na ry a uthority ove r im m igration, " fe de ra l c la ssific a tions distinguishing a m ong groups of a lie ns a

re va lid unle ss wholly irra tiona l." Ha la im

v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a nd a lte ra tions omitte d). Suc h c la ssific a tions a re e ntitle d to a

strong 3pre s um

ption of c onstitutiona

l va lidity . Se e Nune z -R e y e s v. Holde r, 646 F.3d 684, 689 (9th C i r. 2011) (e n

ba nc ). He re , the dispa

rate tre at m e nt is be twe e n a

n individual who le ft the Unite d State s , se e k ing to re turn, a nd a n individual who ha s re m a ine d. B ut " im

m i gration la

ws c an c o nstitutiona

lly ‘ tre a t a lie ns who a

re a lre a dy on our soil (a

n d who a re the re fore de porta

ble ) m ore fav ora

bly tha n a l ie ns who a

re m e re ly se e king a dm itta

nc e (and who a

re the re fore e xc l uda

ble ).’ " Alva

re z -Garc i a v. Ashc roft, 378 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th C ir. 2004) (a lte ra tion omitte d) (quoting Se rvin-Espinoz a

v. Ashc roft, 309 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th C ir. 2002)). In othe r words, C ongre s s’ de c ision to make e nte ring theUnite d State s m ore diffic ult tha n re m a ining he re is not wholly irrationa l. DISM ISSED in pa

rt; DENIED in pa

rt.

4