## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3912 R AMON H U MB E RT O M ARIN -G ARC IA, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l of th e U n ite d Sta te s, R es pond ent .

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals
.

No . A 097-448-489
A RGUED M AY 12, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 22, 2011

B efore B AUER, F LA UM, an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges. F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . R amon H um be r to M ar i nGar ci a se ek s to pr ev en t th e g o ve r nm ent fr o m r emov i ng hi m fr o m th e co unt r y . H e ar g ue s ch i efl y th at d oi ng so w oul d v iol ate the const i tuti onalr i ghts ofhi s three d au gh te rs , na tu ra l-bo rn U n ite d Sta te s c itiz en s w h o w ill tr avelto M exi c o w ith h i m i fwe deny hi s peti ti on for re vi ew . A l though we agre e that he has s tandi ng to m ake2 N o. 10

- 3912 th e argu m en t, w e rej ect it on th e m erits. H is second ary ar gu m en t s fare n o b et te r. A c c or d in gly , w e d en y h is p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.
I . B a c kg r o und M ar i n-Gar ci a i s a M exican ci ti zen. In J une 199 1, he ent er ed the U ni ted S tat es “w i th ou t ins pecti on. ” See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 2 5 ( a ) ( 3 )
. Be c a us e h e wa s n o tp r o pe r l y a dm i tte d i nto the United S tat es, he was e l i gibl e forr em ov al. See8 U .S.C . §§ 1 1 82 (a)( 6)(A )(i), 122 7(a )(1) . In 2003 , the Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty i ni ti ate d re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs . D u rin g th e 1 2 y ea rs be tw ee n h is ar riv al an d th e s ta rtof re m ov al p ro c ee d in gs , M ar in -G ar c ia gotm ar ri ed and too k the helm of a sm al lfam i l y. A l though hi s wife als o l acks l ega lst atus, he pay s t axes and has a hom e in B eloi t, W iscons in. E ach of his th ree d au gh ters w as born i n thi s co untry. There f or e, th ey a re ci ti zens of th e U nited States. U
. S. C O NST . am end. XI V, § 1, cl. 1; 8 U.S
. C. § 1 401. I n the proce edi ngs a gainst h i m , M ar i n-Gar ci a di d not conte st hi s r em ovabi l i ty. Rather, he s ought cancel l ati on ofr em ova lunder 8 U
. S. C. § 1 229 b (b ). The pro vi si on pu ts disc re ti on in the hand s o fthe A tto rneyG en er al t o can cel the rem oval ofan alien i f fo u r c r iteri a are sati sfi ed: ( 1) he ha s be eni n the Uni te d S ta te s f o r1 0 co nti nuous ye ar s i m m edi ate l y pr ecedi ng the appli cati on f orcancellat ion; ( 2) he ha s be en a perso n ofgo od m or al chara cterduri ng tha t per i od; ( 3) he has not been convi cted of cer tain sta tutor i l y s peci fi ed offenses ; and ( 4) he “ est abl i sh es tha t r emov alwoul d r es ul t i n e xc ept ional a ndN o. 10

- 3912 3 extr em el y unusualhar dship to [ hi s] spouse , pare nt, o r chi l d, w ho i s a ci ti zen o fthe U ni ted S tat es oran ali en l a wful l y a dmi t t e d fo r pe r man e ntr e s i de nc e . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 12 29 b(b) ( 1) ( A)- ( D)
. By the s ta tu te ’ s te r m s, a l lf o ur cri ter i a m ust be sat i sfi ed, and we gener al l y l ack j u ris dicti on t o question the A tto rneyGenera l ’ s deci si on notto ex er c ise h is d isc re ti on . See8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (B)(i ); 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (D). I n eva l uati ng the f our cancel l ati on cr i ter i a, th e k ey i ssue f orthe i m m i gr ati on j ud ge ( and stu m bl i ng bl ock f orM ar i n-Gar ci a) r el ate d to the fourth re quir em ent o f § 1229b(b)

— whe the rr e mov a lwo ul d r e s ul ti n “ e xc e ptional and extrem ely un us ua l ha rd sh ip” to M arin-G arcia’s ci t i z e n- c hi l dr e n. Hi s da ught e r s a r e n a tur a l

-b o r n Uni ted S t a t e s c i t i z e n s , b e t we e n 1 0 t o 1 5 y e a r s o fa g e ( a tth e t i me ofthe re m ova l p ro c eed i ngs)
. One i s a sthm ati c, and her c on d iti on co u ld be ex ac erb at ed by th e d u st y ro ad s in the a rea o fM ex i co t o whi chM ar i n- Gar ci a woul d r etur n. The oth ert wo da ught er s ha ve ha d m edi ca lc o ndi ti o ns th atap p ea r les s-o b vio u sly se ve re . A ll o f th e g irls w ou ld be w ithou t hea lth insu ran ce in M ex ico. Th e d au gh ters a l s o w o u l d f a c e e d u c a t i o n a lc h a l l e n g e s . T h e r e i s s o me in d ica tio n th atn on e re ad s o r w rit es in Sp an ish , although the i m m i gr ation j ud ge sta ted thatthe “chi l dren und o ub t e dl y . . . s pe a kS pa ni s h i n o r de rt o s pe a kto th e i rpa r e n t s . ” A ft e rc o n s i d e r i n gth e e v i d e n c e , th e i mm i gr ati on j ud ge re aso ned that the c ha llenge s f aced by M ar i n-Gar ci a’ s f am i l y were notsuffi ci entl y s er i ou s to quali fy a s e xcepti onaland extr em el y unusual
. There f or e, th e jud ge co n c lu d ed t h atM ar in -G ar c ia w as ine ligib le for can cellati on of rem oval un d er § 1229b (b). T h e Boa rd4 N o. 10

- 3912 ofI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s a gr eed with the i m m i gr ati on j ud g e ’ s r e a s o ningan d d i s mi s s e d the a pp e a ltha tf o l l o we d. M ar i n-Gar ci a has now fi l ed a pet i ti on forr evi ew with us , c o nt en di ngc hi efl y tha t r em oving h i m fr o m the Uni te d S ta te s woul d v i o l at e th e Uni te d S ta te s Co ns ti tu
tion. Sp ecifi cally, M arin-G arcia argue s tha t the Boa rd ’s fr amewor kf o rev alua tingc an ce l l at i o n r eque st s, b eg i nning wi th a de c i s i o n c a l l e d M at t e rof M onre al, 23 I
. & N
. Dec. 56 (B IA 20 01 ), v i o l at es th e e q u al p ro te c tio n righ ts of h is d au gh ters. H is princip al argum en t is th at th e B oard ’s a pp l i c a t i o n o fS e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D)

— excepti o na la nd e x tr em ely u n u su al h ar d sh ip

— i s unconst i tuti onalbec au se th e B oa rd ’s f r a m ew or k c om p ar es th e h ar d sh ip of c i t i z en -c h ild re n to th e h ar d sh ip of alie n s in ge n er al, ra therthan com pari ng the har dship o fci ti zen- c h ildren to “th e citi zen children pop ulation at large.” Petitioner’s B rie f at 8. M eanw hi l e, the gov er nm ent ar gues that a prudentia ll i m i tat ion o n the exer ci se offedera lj uri sdict ion prevents us fro m ente rt ai ni ng hi s a rgum ents. The go vernm ent m ai ntai ns that M ar i n-Gar ci a does not ha ve stan d i ngt o a dva nc e ar g um en ts b as ed o n the i nter est s o fhi s daughter s.
II. D i scussi on Altho ugh we g en er al l y l ac kj ur i sdi cti o n t o r ev i ew the At t o r n e y G e n e r a l ’ s d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e c i s i o n u n d e rth e I mm i g r at i o n a nd Nat i o na l i tyActno t to can ce lM ar i nGar ci a’ s r emov al, we r et ain j uri sdi ct i o n o ve rc o ns ti tu
tional claim s an d m atters of law
. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)( D ); Fred e r i c kv. Ho lder, N o. 09 -26 07, 201 1 W L 16 42 81 1, at*4N o. 10

- 3912 5 ( 7th Ci r. M ay 3, 20 11)
. Typi cal l y o ur r evi ew o fsuch m at t e r s i s d e n ov o, see B a rrad a s v. Ho lder, 58 2 F
. 3d 754, 76 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , b ut in thi s ca se we vi ew M ar i nG arcia’s argum en t for th e fi rst tim e ; b e low , the B oard c on c lu d ed th atit w as n otem p ow er ed to en te rt ain the c onst i tuti onal chal l enges thatM ar i n-Gar ci a r ai ses . W e co ncl ud e a s fol lows: M ar i n-Gar ci a has thi rd- party st an d in g t o m ak e th e a rg u m en ts h e a d va n c es on be h alf o fh i s d a u g h t e r s . H e c a n n o ts u c c e e d o n th e me r i t s , h o weve r. A m ong othe r probl em s, hi s chi efco ns tituti onal ar gum en t i s ba se d o n a n e r r o ne o us r ea ding o fthe Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n in M at t e rof M onre al, a case wh i ch se ts out the a gency ’ s fra m ew or k ford et er m i ni ng wh ether re m oving an ali en would cause ci ti zen- re l ati ves to s uf fe ra n “ e x c e p t i o n a la n d e x t r e me l y u n u s u a lh a r d s h i p” w ithin th e m ean ing of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229b (b)( 1)(D).
A. T hi r d- Pa rtySt a ndi ng Bef o r e we a ddr es s th e m er i ts , a di sc us si o n o fM ar i nG arcia’s stan d ing is in ord e r . H is chief argu m en t cen ters p r i ma r i l y o n th e r i g h t s o fh i s d a u g h t e r s . Gene r a l l y, h o wev er, Pe r so n A i s no t e nti tl ed to a d va n c e the l ega l i nt er es ts o fPe r so n B i n federa lco urt. That i s, ev en th o ugh a pe r so n may su ffera n inj ur y tha t sa ti sfi es the c on st itu tio n al ca se or c on tr ov er sy re q u ire m en t o fA r tic le III, Sec tio n 2 of th e U n ite d S ta te s C on st itu tio n, Si ngl e t on v. Wulff , 42 8 U.S
. 10 6, 11 2-13 ( 1976 ) , he g ener al l y m ay not redres s h is injury by reference to som eon e else’s r i g h t s, Barrows v. Jac ks on , 346 U .S. 24 9, 25 5 (1 95 3). See a lso U
. S. D ep’tof Laborv. Triple tt, 49 4 U.S
. 71 5, 72 0 ( 1990 )6 N o. 10

- 3912 (observing th at “[t]his i s gen erall y so even w he n th e very sa m e all ege dlyi l l ega lactthataffects the l i ti gant al so a ffe c t s a thi r d p a r ty ” )
. T he p r e s umpt i o n a g a i ns tthi r dpartyst anding i s a “prudenti all im ita tion on the exer ci se offedera lj uri sdic ti on. ” M i l l e rv. Al b r ight, 523 U .S. 4 20, 445 ( 19 98) ( O’Connor, J
. , co ncurr i ng)
. I t i s a pre -j uri sdic

tio n al, th re sh old q u e s tio n for fe d er al c ou rt s, s e eTe ne tv. D oe, 54 4 U.S
. 1, 6 n. 4 ( 2005 ) , w h i ch “r eco gni zes that c lai m s a re bes t pr ose cuted by thos e who actual l y hav e b ee n inju re d , rat h er th a n b y s om eo n e inth eir st ea d ,” M a ssey v . W

heeler, 221 F.3d 103 0, 1035 ( 7th Cir. 2000). Despit e the gener al i m pedim ent to advanci n g s om eone el se’ s inter est s, the Suprem e Cour t has hel d that a perso n m ay l i ti gat e a nother ’ s r i ghts i n hi s o w n cause so l o nga s th r ee c r i te r i a a r e sa ti sfi ed: ( 1) the l i ti g an t m ust have suffer ed an i nj ury i n f act; ( 2) the l i ti gan t m u st ha ve a c lose relation to the third pa rty; an d ( 3) there m ust e xi st som e hindrance to the thi rd party’ s abi l i ty to prot ect hi s o r her own i nter est. P ow ers v. O hio , 499 U
. S. 40 0, 4 10

- 11 , 4 15 ( 19 91 ) ( ho l di ngtha t a cr i m i na lde fen dan t ha d stan d ing to rais e th e equ al protec tion rights of a w ou ld-be j uror ex clud ed from service by th e pros ecu tion). Allthr ee c r i te r i a ha ve b ee n s at i sfi ed i n thi s ca se . M ar i nG ar c ia h as su ffer ed a c on c re te inj u ry in t h e fo rm of h is re m ova lo rderand im pend i ng r em ova lfro m the U ni ted St ate s. H e i s by defini ti on cl ose l y re l ate d t o hi s daughter s. A s t o th e thi rd r equi re m ent, hi s daughter s a re m i nor c h ild re n an d th er efo re are “h in d er ed ” fro m b rin gin g s u it th em se l v e s . Sm i t h v
. O rganizat i on of Fo s t e rFa m i l i e s f

or E qua lity a nd R efo rm , 431 U
. S. 816, 841 n
. 44 (1977). M oreover,N o. 10

- 3912 7 M ar i n-Gar ci a i s i n the best posi ti on to l i ti gat e the ca se, because he i s the o nl y par ty to the i m m i gr ati on proce edi ng, ev en tho u gh hi s daughter s’ r i ghts m ay be affecte d. The Fi rs t Ci rcui t, o n si m i l arf acts with s i m i l ar a r gu m en ts , ha s re ac h ed th e s am e c on c lu sio n . Pay neB a rah o na v. G o nz a les , 4 74 F. 3d 1, 2 ( 1s t Ci r . 2 00 7) ( r ea so ni ng th at“ th e r equi r ement s i n P o w ers . . . appear eas i l y m et inth is in st an c e” ). T he govern m en t’s argu m en t to th e con trary m isu nd erst an ds th e th i r d- par ty
- st an di ng i nqui r y . The go ve r nm ent m ai ntains thatM ar i n -G arci a l acks thi rd- party st an di ngb ec au se hi s daught er s do no t ha ve m er i to r i o us cl ai m s. The doct rin e ofthi rd- partyst anding i s a n antece den t que sti o n tha t we a ns weri n o r dert o t el lus i fwe m ayr ea chthe mer i ts . Hav i nga ns wered in the affir m at ive , w e p ro c ee d
.
B. M erit s The m er i ts ar e w here M ar in-Gar ci a’ s peti ti on founders. A s w e n ot ed ab ov e, fed er al a p p ea ls c ou rt s o rd in ar ily l ack j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew the A tto rneyGenera l ’ s di screti onar y deci si ons re gar ding cancell ati on o fr em ova l und er 8 U
. S. C. § 1229 b( b)
. The gener al bar app ea rs in 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( B)( i) , whi chpr o vi des tha t “n o c o u r t s h a l l h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w . . . a n y j udg m en t re ga rd in g th e g ra n tin g of re lief u n d er se c tio n . . . 12 29 b
. . . of this ti tle.
. . . ” U nd e r S e c t ion 1252(a)(2)( D ), how ever, w e retain j urisd iction to review c o n stitut ional m atters a n d qu e s t i o n s o fl a w.8 N o. 10

- 3912

T hr ou g ho u t his b rief, M arin -G arc ia inv ok es to F o u rteen th 1 A m en d m en t, w hich b y its term s a p p lies to th e states. Th e F ifth Am en d m en tpr ovi des the pr ope r t ex t ual ho m e f or the ar gum en ts t h a t h e m a k es . SeeSan F ra nci sc o A rts & A t hl et i cs , Inc. v . U. S. Oly mp i c Co mm. , 48 3 U .S. 5 2 2 , 54 2 & n .21 (19 8 7 ). M ar i n-Gar ci a’ s chi efar gu m ent i s a co nsti tuti onalo ne. This i s the di sti l l ati on o fhi s a t- ti m es- diffi cul t- tof ol l ow argum ent: th e B oard of Im m igrat ion Ap peals, in e val uat i ng t hehards hip thatre m ovin g il l egal al i e ns i nf l i cts on citiz en-rela tiv e fa m ily m em bers, co m pa res the ha rdsh ip in flicted on ci t ize n- re l at i ve s t o t hehards hip i nf l i cte d on othe ral i e ns . The pro per co m pa rison gro up is oth er citizen -relati ves o f U nited State s cit izens (w ho, of cours e, do not f ace re m ova l)
. Th erefore, t heBoar d’s f

ram e workvi ol at e s thee q ual prote ct i on co m pone nt o f the Fifth A m end m ent’s d ue p roc ess clau se . W e ind i cate d 1 our ske pti ci sm abo ut a near l y i denti calar gum ent, tho ugh we di d notta k e i t up, i n Leyva v. A shcroft, 38 0 F
. 3d 303, 30 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 )
. In Leyva , we di d no t addr es s th e ar g um en t hea d -on bec a u s e a t the tim e the re w as a m ore str i ngent j uri sdic ti onalbarthan exi sts to day. I n gi vin ga d d i t i o n a la t t e n t i o n t o th e ma t t e rn o w, we o bs er ve tha t th e fi r stha l fo fM ar i n- Gar ci a’ s ar g um en t n ev er ga in s t ra c tio n . H e d er ive s t h e B oa rd ’s a lleg ed ly unconsti tuti onalfra m ew or k for e val uati ng exce pti onal an d extrem ely un us ua l h a rd sh ip from the latter’s dec i si o n in M at t e rof M onre al, 2 3 I. & N . D ec . 56 (B IA 200 1 ) , a nd c o nt e nd s tha tthe Bo a r d’ s de c i s i o n c o mpa re s the har dship o fci ti zen- re l ati ves to the har dship o fal i ens. A l th ou gh i t i s no t pr eci sel y c l earwh at he m eans byN o. 10

- 3912 9 th ats ta te m en t, he do es no t seem to t ak e i ss ue wi ththe fact that Se cti on 1 229b ( b) ( 1) ( D) t ake s into consi derat i on th e ha r dsh i p tha t ana li en ’s r emov almay i m po se o n a law fu l p er m an en t re sid en t. Cf. Toll v. M o reno , 45 8 U.S
. 1, 43-44 ( 1982 ) ( i nd i cating tha t s tat es gener al l y pos ses s few l eg i ti m at e r ea so ns to di st i ng ui shb etwee n c i ti ze ns an d law full y r es i den t al i en s)
. Homi ngi n o n the a r g um en t fur th er i s no t ne ce ss ary, ho wev er, b ec au se M ar i nG arcia’s offers an in s u p p ortable read ing of M onre al . In th atde ci si o n, the Bo ard c o m pr eh en sive l y e xpl o r ed th e m ea ni nga nd i m pl i ca ti o ns o fCo ng r es s’ s r equi r ement tha t o nly “ e xc e pt i o na l a nd e xt r e mel y un us ua l har ds hi p” to cl ose r el ati ves can tr i gge r the Attorn ey General ’ s di scre ti on t o can c el an al i en’ s r em ova l
. The deci si on t ra ced th e hi sto ryo fthe sta tutory l anguage and thoughtfull y an aly ze d C on gr e s s ’ s n o n - se lf-d efin in g la n gu ag e in 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229b (b)( 1)(D). Atn o p o i nti n the de c i s i o n di d M onr eal sugge st that th e h ar d sh ip of cit ize n -re l a t i v e s o f alien s m u stor c ou ld b e c o mp a r e d t o th e h a r d s h i p e n d u r e d b y a l i e n s th e mse lve s. Se eM onre al, 23 I
. & N
. Dec. at63 (s ta tin g that ha r ds hi p t o “ the a pp l i c a ntf o rr e l i e f
. . . c a nn o tb e c ons i der ed und erthe cancell ati on s tatute, wh er e only h ar d sh ip to quali fyi ng r el ati ves . . . m ay be c onsi dered”)
. N or does th e d eci si on m ake di stincti ons on the bas i s o fr ace, as M arin-G arcia i nt im ates. Rat he r , ju st li ke th e statu tory lan gu ag e th atC on gr es s e n ac te d , M onre al te aches that to tr i gg e rthe At t o r ne y Ge ne r a l ’ s di s c r e t i o n un de rS e c t i on 1229 b( b) ( 1) ( D ) the hardshi p to ci ti zen- re l ati ves m ust be gr eat erthan the typi calhar dship e n du re d by cl ose fam ily m em b er s w h en an alien is re m o v e d
. Id. at63

- 6410 N o. 10

- 3912

“T he exclu sion of alie n s an d the re serv atio n o f the p ow er to 2 de por th a ve n o pe r m i s s ibl e c ou nt e r pa r ti n the F e de r a l Go ver n m en t’s p o w er to re g u la te th e co n d u ct o f its o w n c iti z en ry .” M athews v. Di az , 42 6 U .S. 7 6 , 80 (19 7 6 ) (foo tn o te s o m itt ed ). ( provi ding a g ener alsum m ar y off acto rs thati m m i gr atio n j ud ges sho uld co nsi der)
. The l anguage o fthe sta tute an d th e di sc us sion i n M onre al i s straightforw ard

— as is the di scussi on in the subsequent c as es applying M onre al
. See M a tte rof

Re ci nas , 23 I. & N . D ec . 467, 468 -69 (B IA 20 02 ); M at t e rof

Andal oza , 23 I. & N . D ec . 319 , 321 (B IA 20 0 2 )
. S i mply p u t, th e p r e mi s e o fMa r i n - Ga r c i a ’ s a r g um en t

— th at so m e co ns ti tu ti o na l i l l fl o ws from the Bo ar d’ s pr ac ti ce o fc o m par i ngc i ti ze n- r el at i ve s to a l i en s

— i s inc o r r e c t . T he c o l l a ps e o fthe a r g ume nt ’ s p r em i se tak es the c oncl usi on with i t. T h e o th er h alf ofM ar in -G ar c ia’s p rin c ip al a r g u m e n t is that the e q ualpro tect i on co m ponent o fthe du e pr oce ss c lau se , s e eBol l i ng v. Sh arpe, 347U .S. 49 7, 49 8-9 9 ( 1 95 4), is vi ol ate d because S ecti on 1 229b ( b) (1)( D) a s a pp l i ed by th e Bo ar d do es no t co m p ar e ci ti ze n- r el at i ve s o fa l i en s to citi zen -rel atives of U
. S. cit iz en s. I n M arin-G arcia’s estim ation, “[ t]he ac cep table m e asu rem en t stan d ard w hen anal yzing exce pti onal and extre m el y unusual hardshi p to U ni ted S tat es ci ti zen chi l dren o ught t o be how
. . . any ofthe approxi m ate l y 74, 718, 000, und er 18 yea r ol d U ni ted S tat es c itize ns . . . [ w oul d] s ufferi ff or ced to abandon the U n ited S tat es . . . . ” Peti ti oner ’ s Bri efat 24. That e nti re l y hy pothecat ed i nq u iry would appear 2 to hurt M ar i n-Gar ci a’ s chance s. A l though M ar i n-Gar ciaN o. 10

- 3912 11 d oes not set outto exp la in h ow his prop osed stan d ard mi g h t p l a y o u t, i t w o u l d s e e m th a t th e s h o r t e r t h e t i me peri od thata fa m ily has r em ai ned i n the U ni ted S tat es, the s tr onge r the c ultural, f am ilial, and eco nom i c ti es to th e co unt r y fr o m whi chthe f ami l y e m i g r at ed. Thu s, the st an d ar d h e p ro p os es w o u ld m ak e itles s like ly th at(m or e re c en tly arr ive d ) alien s c ou ld es ta b lish th eir el i gibi l i ty f orcance l l atio n ofr em ova lunder S ecti on 1229 b( b)
. W e nee d n ot r em and an i m m i gr ati on ca se w h er e d oing so w oul d prove futi l e. Se eSh ou We iJi n v . Ho lder, 572 F.3d 392 , 396 (7th C ir. 2009). M or eov er, i t se em s that M ar i n-Gar ci a’ s r eal( i fneve r fully a rt i cul ate d) c onte nti on is that due proc ess o r equal pr o te ct i o n o fthe l aws g o es unful fi l l ed when th e g o ve r nm ent e xposes cit i zen- chi l dren t o re m ova l

— i n the no ntechni calse nse

— w hen thei r parents ar e fo rce d to l eave . A fteral l, chi l dren wh ose pare nts a re U ni ted S tat es ci ti ze ns wil l not f ac e th e spe ct ero fb eingt ak ent o a l an d they have neverkno w n, and being effecti vel y for ced to l eave the countr y m ay depri ve a p erson of“a l lthat m ake s l i fe w or th livin g. ” SeeNg Fung H o v. White, 25 9 U
. S. 27 6, 28 4 ( 1922 )
. H owever, Congr ess ’ s a uthor i ty ove r im m ig r a t i on m at te rs is ex p an siv e. Se eM at he ws v. D i az , 42 6 U .S. 67, 81 (1 97 6). “C on gr es s h as . . . ex c e p t i o n a lly bro ad p ow erto deter m i ne wh i ch cl ass es ofal i ens m ay l aw fully e nterthe countr y. ” Fiallo v. B el l , 43 0 U.S
. 78 7, 79 4 ( 19 77 )
. A ne ce ss ary c o r o l l ary o fC ong r es s’ s g at e- k ee pi ng pow eri s the autho ri ty to re m ove so m eone wh o has unlawful l y e nter ed. A nd al though equalpro tect i on re q u ire s “ th atall p er so n s s im ilar ly c irc u m st an c ed sh all b e t re at ed alike ,” Ply l e rv. D oe, 45 7 U.S. 202, 21 6 ( 1982 )12 N o. 10

- 3912

I n Nguye n v . I
. N. S. , 53 3 U .S. 53, 60-61 ( 20 01 ), th e C ou rt he ld 3 tha t a ge nd er-b ased classificatio n w hich related to the acq u isi- (co n tin u ed ...) ( quotati on m ar ks om i tted ) , the const i tuti on “ does not re quir e thi ngs which a re di ffer ent in f act . . . to be treat ed i n l aw as tho ugh th ey w er e the sa m e, ” i d. ( quoti ng Tign er v. Texas , 310 U
. S. 141, 147 (1940 ))
. I n F ia ll o , the Court consi dered a chal l enge bro ught by i l l eg ali m m i g r an t f athe r s an d the i ri l l eg i ti m at e ci ti ze nch i l dr ent o i m m i g r at ion pr efer en ce s co nt aine d i n the Im m igr at ion an d N at ion alit y A c t. U n d er on e o f th e p ro visi ons at i ssue, f orexam ple , a m othe r coul d gai n entr y into the Unite d Sta tes i fherchi l d w as a c itiz en , sk i rt i ng o ther i m m i g r at i o n r equir em en ts a l o ngthe way . Howev er, the natura lf athero fsuch a chi l d , if the chi l d w as i l l egi ti m ate , was not enti tl ed to pre fer enti altr eat m ent. Fiallo , 43 0 U
. S. at78 8- 90. A l though the Courtr eco gni zed th atth e re gim e d isc rim in at ed ag ain stm en an d w ou ld b u rd en th e in te re st s o f cit ize n s b y p re v e n t i n g th eir lov ed o n es from en te rin g th e U n ite d Sta te s, see i d. at79 4- 95 & n. 6, i t no ted Congr ess ’ s br oad powers ove r i m m i gr ation m atters an d ruled that i t w o uld not ap p ly “a m ore e x a c t i n gs t a n d a r d ” th a n t o a s kwh e th e rC o n g r e s s o rt he e xe c ut i v e a dv a nc e d “ a f a c i a l l y l egi t i mat e a nd b o na fi de r ea so n ” fo r ac tin g in th e m an n er it h ad ch os en . S e e i d. at 794- 95 ( quotin g K leind ienst v . M a nd el , 40 8 U.S
. 75 3, 770 (1972 ))
. M ar i n- Garci a do es no t co nv i nc i ng l y e xpl ain why a m o r e st r i ng en t st an dar d s ho ul d a ppl y he r e, a nd w e per cei ve no g oo d rea son ours el ves. The prac ti ce o f 3N o. 10

- 3912 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 ti on of ci ti zenshi p by children born abroad s urvived hei ghtened scru tiny , b u t the C ou rt exp licitly le ft u nd isturb ed p rior case law ind icatin g tha t a low er stan d a r d g ov ern ed
. In a ny ev en t, the re i s no i ndi c at i on thatthe Boa rd ha s appl i ed S ec t i on 12 29 b( b) bas ed o n classi fi c at i ons t o whi c h h ei ght en ed s c ru t i ny app li es . Likew is e, the re i s no indicat ion that a lie n s are s ub j ect to rem ov al p ro ceed ing s becau sethe y ha ve pro duce d ci t i ze nchil dren, as w ould be neces sar y f or M ari n- G arci a ’s equal p ro te ct io n th eo ry to b e v ia b le
. Se eRo g e rs v . Lodge, 458 U.S
. 613, 618 ( 1982) (no ti ng that a regi m e that affect s a great er proporti on of o n e ra ce than another do es not r un afoul ofequal p ro te ct io n g u a ra n te es ). re m ov in g a lien s w ith cit ize n -c h ild re n is co n st itu tio n ally sound, and w e a l so perce i ve no co nsti tuti onali n fi rm i ty w i th the st atu te. S ecti on 1 229b ( b) ( 1) ( D) di stingui shes be twe ena l i en s who ha ve c l o se c i ti zen -re l at i ve s i n the U ni ted S ta tes and al i ens who do not
. Onlyi fan a l i en has cl ose ci ti zen- re l ati ves m ay the A tto rney G en er al c a n c e lr e mo v a l
. T h u s , S e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) p u t s a th u mb on the sc al e in f avo r ofo ther w i se- re m ovab l e a l i ens l i ke M ar i n- Gar ci a. The pr o vi si o n r efl ec ts the l eg i ti m at e an d l o n g - r e c o g n i z e d C o n g r e s s i o n a lp o l i c y o fp r o t e c t i n gt he in te gr ity of th e fa m ily u n it. SeeI
. N
. S. v. E rr ico , 38 5 U.S
. 21 4, 220 ( 1966 )
. B u t nothi ng in the const i tuti on pro hibi ts Con g r es s fr o m pl acing robus t l i m i ts o n tha t po l i cy . Co nsi ste n t w i th the expansi ve nature o fCongr ess ’ s power ov er im m i gr at ion m at te rs , e . g. , D i az , 42 6 U.S
. 67, 78 n. 12 ( noting the var i etyo fst atuto rypro vi si ons that distin gu ish be tw ee n alien s a n d n on -alie n s), “itis n o t fo r th is Court to questi on the wisdom o f[ Congre ss’ s] cho ice ,”14 N o. 10

- 3912 Negu sie v. Ho lder, 555 U .S. 51 1, ___, 12 9 S
. C t. 11 59 , 11 80 n .2 ( 20 09 ) , t o make i t di ffi cul t to e st ab l i she xc ept i o na la nd ex trem ely un us ua l ha rd sh ip un d er Section 122 9b(b)(1)( D ). See a lso i d. ( “ ‘ [ O] ve rno c o nc ei vabl e su bj ec t i s th e leg is l a t i ve p ow er of C on gr es s m or e c om p let e th an it is o v e r ’ the de c i s i o n o fCo ng r ess t o a dmi to re xc l ud e al i ens. ”) ( quoti ng O ce ani c St e am Nav. Co. v. St ranah an , 21 4 U
. S. 320, 339 (1909 ))
. M oreover, even ifa m ore se ar c h in g in q u iry ap p l i ed , Sec tio n 12 29 b (b )(1) (D ) w ou ld s ur v i v e . I f a n a l i e n c o ul d a v o i d the c o ns e qu e nces of un l a wfule nt r y i nt o the Uni t e d S t a t e s b y h avi ng a c hi l d, i t woul d c r ea te pe r ve r se i nc en ti ve s an d unde r m in e Con

gr es s’s au th or ity ov er im m igr at ion m at te rs . Se eAyal aFl ore s v. I
. N
. S. , 6 62 F.2d 444, 44 6 (6th C ir. 1 981) (a contra ry rul e “ w oul d c re ate a substa nti all oo phole i n the i m m i gr ati on l aw s”)
. Of cour se, M ar in -Garci a has notco nvi nced us tha t a mor e se ar ch i ngs ta nda r d s ho ul d a ppl y, a nd seve r a l o the r c i r c ui t s ha v e r ul e d tha t the r e mov a l o fan i l l ega lal i en does notwork a co nsti tu tio n alvi ol ati on o n th e a lien ’s c itiz en -c h i l d re n . Se ePayne

- Barah ona , 474 F
. 3d at2 & n. 1 ( co l lecting ca se s an d no tingtha t “[ t] he ci r cui ts tha t ha ve a ddr es se d the c o ns ti tutionali ss ue ( unde rv ary i ngi nc arn at i o ns o fthe i m m i g r at i o n l aws a nd inva ry in g p ro c ed u ra l p os tu re s) h av e u n iform ly h eld that a par en t’ s o ther w i se val i d dep or tat i on does not vi o l a t e a c h i l d ’ s c o n s t i tu t i o n a lr i g h t ” )
. T o th e e x t e n to ur own pre cedent was notcl ear, we m ake i t e xpli ci t t oday. A co upl e r emai ni ngmatt er s m er i t o nl y b r i efment i o n. A t o n e p oin t, M ar i n - G ar c ia a ss er ts h is ow n cla im in h is p et itio n . H e a rg u es th atth e p ro c ee d in gs be for e th e im m igr ati on j ud ge denie d him pro cess i n the M at he ws v. Eld r i dgeN o. 10

- 3912 15

m old
. See 42 4 U. S
. 3 19 , 3 34

- 35 (197 6). A pr o ce dur aldue pr o ce ss c l ai m c anno t su r vi ve wi th o utthe e xi st en ce of a prot ecte d l iber ty orpro pertyi nter est . Cancel l ati on o f re m ova lunder S ecti on 1 229b ( b) , howe ve r, “is a disc re ti ona r y f o r m o fr e l i e f, [ a nd the r e f o r e ] do e s n o tc o nfe r onto [ the pet i ti oner ] a l iber ty orpro pertyi nter est . ” C h a mpio n v . Ho lder, 62 6 F
. 3d 952, 95 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. There f or e, th e p ro c ed u ra l d u e p ro c es s c laim fails . M ar in -G a r c ia als o a rg u es th atrem ov in g h im w ou ld u n c on st itu tio n ally burden the vot i ng r i ghts of h is daughters
. I t would not
. I fM ar i n-Gar ci a were to tak e hi s daughter s t o M exi co, th eywoul d b e ab l e to retu rn t o Am er i ca t o l i ve a nd vot e upon r eaching the appropr i ate ag e. I ftheyo pted not re turn t o the c ountr y, theywo uld s ti l lbe abl e t o o bt ain abs en te e ba l l o ts pur su an t to the Uni f o r m ed an d O ve rs ea s C itiz en s A b se n te e V ot in g A c t. Se e 42 U. S
. C. § 1973 ff et seq
.
I I I . Concl usio n Forthe re aso n s se t for th abo ve, M ar i n-Gar ci a’ s peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

7- 22- 11