Case Name: Jaw-Shi WANG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-02
Citations: 67 F. App'x 998
Docket Number: No. 01-56331; D.C. No. CY-01-00719-K/RBB
Parties: Jaw-Shi WANG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NOONAN, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 998–998

Head Matter:
Jaw-Shi WANG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, et al., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 01-56331.
D.C. No. CY-01-00719-K/RBB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 2003.
Decided July 2, 2003.
Before NOONAN, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Jaw-Shi Wang appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas relief. The sole ground for appeal is his contention that INA § 212(h) violates equal protection in its disparate treatment of lawful permanent residents (LPRs). We rejected this very argument in Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 958 (9th Cir.2002) ("[Appellant's] equal protection claim fails because the INS has advanced a rational explanation for the difference in treatment between LPR and non-LPR aggravated felons.").
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.