Case Name: David A. ROMERO-CORTEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-24
Citations: 88 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 03-56515; D.C. No. CV-02-2228-VAP
Parties: David A. ROMERO-CORTEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
David A. ROMERO-CORTEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-56515.
D.C. No. CV-02-2228-VAP.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 24, 2004.
Nancy E. Miller, Robert L. Reeves & Associates, Robert J. Dupont, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Dorothy A. Schouten, Maria M. Syms, Asst. U.S. Atty., USLA—Office of The U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David A. Romero-Cortez, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who was convicted of an aggravated felony, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging an order of deportation following the denial of his application for discretionary relief from deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). He contends that § 1182(h) violates equal protection because it excludes lawful permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies from eligibility for relief from deportation but permits aliens who enter the United States illegally and then commit aggravated felonies to seek discretionary relief from inadmissibility orders. This contention is foreclosed by our decision in Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. The motion for a stay of deportation pending review is denied.