Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/332/1205/550533/
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 08:21:41
Document Index: 776374154

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212']

332 F.3d 1205: Virginia Dumlao Taniguchi, Petitioner-appellant, v. John Paul Schultz; Kathleen Hawy Sawyer; Doris Meissner; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents-appellees.virginia Agustin Taniguchi, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondent :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.3d > Volume 332 > 332 F.3d 1205 - Virginia Dumlao Taniguchi, ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
332 F.3d 1205: Virginia Dumlao Taniguchi, Petitioner-appellant, v. John Paul Schultz; Kathleen Hawy Sawyer; Doris Meissner; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents-appellees.virginia Agustin Taniguchi, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 332 F.3d 1205
Jocelyn Burton, Robert Yeargin, USSF &#x2014; Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, DOJ &#x2014; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., for Respondent-Appellee.
1 The majority assumes in its holding, and I agree, that § 212(h) applies to aliens both within the United States and aliens seeking admission into the United States
2 By upholding § 212(h) on the basis that Congress could have believed that LPRs were more likely to be recidivists than non-LPRs because LPRs have more substantial family ties to the United States, the panel contravenes our rule that courts examining equal protection challenges must be "careful not to attribute to the government purposes which it cannot reasonably be understood to have entertained."Wauchope v. United States Dept. of State, 985 F.2d 1407, 1415 (9th Cir.1993) (internal citations and brackets omitted). The plain language of § 212(h) illustrates that it is inconceivable that Congress barred LPRs from § 212(h) discretionary relief because Congress believed that LPRs were less deserving of relief because of their family ties to the United States; family ties are a statutory prerequisite for non-LPRs to obtain relief under § 212(h). Thus, Congress could not have believed that family connections rendered LPRs less worthy of relief because Congress explicitly conditioned eligibility under § 212(h) to non-LPRs who have substantial family ties to a United States citizen or LPR parent, spouse, or child.
3 Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 958 (9th Cir.2002) (internal cite omitted).