NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0900n.06
No. 11-3531
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT MANUEL

CARMEL O VAL DEZ

RODRI GUEZ , Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE U

NI TED STATES BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: BOG GS, GI L MAN, and D ONAL D, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Manuel Carmelo Valdez-Rodrig uez petitions for revie w of an order of the
Boa rd of I mmigra

tion Appeals (B I A) that a ffirme d an immigr ation judge ’s (I J ) orde r of r emoval. Valdez-Rodrig uez is a native and citiz en of Mexi co. I n April 2000, he entered the United
S t at es without being admitted or parole d afte r inspection. I n 2008, the Depa rtment of Homelan d Security initiated remova l proce eding s ag ainst him. Valdez-Rodrig uez conce ded remova bility , but moved the I J to continue or stay his remova l proce eding s pending the adjudication of an I -130 visa petition that was to be filed on his behalf by his five-y ear -old son, who i s a United States citizen. The I J deni e d the reque st and order ed Valdez-Rodrig uez remove d from the country , concluding that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)( 2)(A) (i), a child must be at least twenty -one y ear s old to file an I -130 visa petition on behalf of a pare nt. The BIA aff irmed the I J ’s d ec i s ion, declining to addre ss ValdezRodrigue z’s constitut ional challeng e to § 1151(b)( 2)(A) (i) as be y ond its power of r eview.No. 11-3531

Valdez-Rodriguez v . Holder On appea l, Valdez-Rodriguez asser ts two arguments: (1) his remova l from the country and his minor son’s inability to file an I -130 visa peti t i o n o n his behalf violate their rig hts under the United States Constit ution and international law; and (2) the ag e require ment in § 1151(b)( 2)(A) (i) has no rational basis. When the BI A issues its own opinion rather t h an s u m m ar i ly adopting the finding s of the I J , we revie w the BIA’s decis ion as the final ag ency deter mination. Bi Xia Qu v. Holder , 618 F.3d 602, 605 (6th Cir. 2010). We revie w l ega l conclusions de novo and fac tual finding s under the substantial-evidenc e standard. Zhao v. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 246 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). The I J ’s order of remova l did not violate the constitutional rig hts of either Valdez-Rodrig uez

or his United States citizen son. See Payne -Barahona v. Gonzales , 474 F.3d 1, 2-3 & n.1 (1st Cir. 2007); Newton v. IN

S , 7 36 F.2d 336, 342-43 (6th Cir. 1984); Hernande z-Rive ra v. INS , 630 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir. 1980). Fur ther, Valdez-Rodrig uez has not identified any specific violation of international law, and “[i] t is the role of Con gre ss, not courts, to ensure that immigration laws comport with family , societal, and other values.” Ukpabi v. Mukase y , 525 F.3d 403, 408 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Finally , the ag e require ment in § 1151(b)( 2)(A) (i) is not irrational beca use it preve nts individuals from enter ing the country illega lly and promptly havi n g ch i l d ren to avoid deporta tion. Hernande

z-Rive ra , 630 F.2d at 1356.
Acc ording ly , we de ny

Valdez-Rodriguez’s petition for re view.

-2-