Opinion ID: 3038948
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioner’s Equal Protection Claim

Text: Granados-Oseguera argues that his equal protection rights have been violated because aliens who are not granted voluntary departure may employ the full 90-day period to file a motion to reopen, while aliens granted voluntary departure have only 30 to 60 days to file their motions to reopen.4 He 4 The relevant statutory provisions provide that a “motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(C)(i), and that the maximum voluntary departure period is 60 days, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2). 11924 GRANADOS-OSEGUERA v. GONZALES contends that this disparate treatment constitutes an equal protection violation. We disagree. Although aliens are entitled to the benefits of the Equal Protection Clause, Perez-Oropeza v. INS, 56 F.3d 43, 44 (9th Cir. 1995), Congress has broad authority over the “admission and expulsion of aliens.” Shaar v. INS, 141 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). Interpreting this broad authority, we have held that a statute limiting relief available to certain classes of aliens must be “wholly irrational” to violate equal protection standards. De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 764 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2002)); Perez-Oropeza, 56 F.3d at 45. Petitioner bears the “burden to negate ‘every conceivable basis which might support [a legislative classification] . . . whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record.’ ” Id. (quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1993)) (alteration in original). [1] Granados-Oseguera cannot meet this burden since we have upheld the very distinction he challenges here. In De Martinez, we held that treating those aliens permitted voluntary departure differently, with respect to the window for filing a motion to reopen, from those not granted voluntary departure is not irrational. We noted a potential legitimate purpose for these different deadlines: “it is less costly and more humane to allow responsible aliens to depart voluntarily without the stigma of being forcibly removed from the United States.” 374 F.3d at 764. In denying this claim, we simply apply binding circuit precedent.