Case Name: Ki Bum SON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William DRINKWATER; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-11
Citations: 48 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 01-15275; D.C. No. CY-01-00023-RCB
Parties: Ki Bum SON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William DRINKWATER; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 48
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
Ki Bum SON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William DRINKWATER; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-15275.
D.C. No. CY-01-00023-RCB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2002.
Decided Oct. 11, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ki Bum Son appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, alleging that section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act violates equal protection and due process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1506 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
Son's contention that section 212(h) violates equal protection by providing a waiver of deportation to aggravated felons who are not legal permanent residents ("LPR"), while denying such relief to LPR aggravated felons, is foreclosed by our recent decision in Taniguchi v. Schultz, 2002 WL 31115538, at *5 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2002) (concluding that there is a rational basis for holding LPRs to a higher standard).
We reject Son's contention that section 212(h) violates his right to substantive due process.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.