Gerardo Romero-Ochoa v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7232
9th Cir.2013Background
- Romero-Ochoa, a Mexican national, immigrated to the United States in 1973 and remains an alien present in the U.S. without admission or parole, facing removal.
- In 2005 removal proceedings were initiated after Romero’s 2004 vehicular manslaughter conviction for killing a person while unlawfully driving under the influence; he pled guilty to California Penal Code § 192(c).
- He conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal or voluntary departure, which require showing good moral character for a 10-year (or 5-year for voluntary departure) period.
- An immigration judge held him statutorily ineligible because of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), which conclusive presumes lack of good moral character for those imprisoned 180 days or more during the relevant period.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the judge’s denial based on § 1101(f)(7).
- Romero challenges the facial constitutionality of § 1101(f)(7) under equal protection, arguing the line is drawn by prison time rather than conduct-based seriousness of offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1101(f)(7) violate equal protection? | Romero argues the time-based trigger is not conduct-based and thus irrational. | The government contends rational basis supports using sentence length as a proxy for seriousness. | No equal-protection violation; rational basis upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- FCC v. Beach Comm’c’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis review governs non-fundamental rights cases)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (screening of statutory classifications under rational basis)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (scope of congressional classifications and deference to legislative judgments)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (policy judgments in immigration fall within political branches)
- Rangel-Zuazo v. Holder, 678 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts defer to Congress on realities of adjudicating offense seriousness)
- Vieira García v. INS, 239 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 2001) (courts may rely on adjudicating forum's judgment about offense seriousness)
- Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012) (line-drawing choices in legislative classifications analyzed under rational basis)
- Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) (recognizes rational basis scrutiny and margins of error in classifications)
- Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (legislative classifications may be inherently imprecise)