FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIQIANG GU, No. 13-72936 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-957-069 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued October 10, 2018 Submission Deferred October 10, 2018 Submitted June 6, 2019 University of Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Liqiang Gu (Gu) petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings, and his applications for withholding of removal, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) when, as here, the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without issuing a separate opinion. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended.1 1. The IJ did not err in concluding that Gu was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), which provides for inadmissibility if the individual seeking admission “(1) is an immigrant (2) who at the time of application for admission (3) lacks a valid entry document.” Minto v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 619, 624 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1261 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gu never possessed a valid entry document. In particular, he was not issued an “umbrella permit,” which might permit his continued presence in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the CNMI).2 Gu’s contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) contravenes congressional intent is foreclosed by Minto. See 854 F.3d at 625 (explaining that 1 Resolution of Gu’s appeal by a single member of the BIA was permissible. See Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 852. 2 Prior to the effective date of the Consolidated and Natural Resources Act of 2008, which applied United States immigration laws to the CNMI, a Superior Court Judge in the CNMI issued an order granting two-year “umbrella permits” to allow immigrants with pending labor petitions to pursue their cases. 2 removability under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) is not contrary to Congress’s intent “to offer limited protection from removal” under 48 U.S.C. § 1806(e)(1)(A)). 2. We are not persuaded by Gu’s argument that excluding noncitizens from eligibility for asylum violates his equal protection rights. The government has articulated an economic interest in protecting visa-free tourism to the CNMI and demonstrated how permitting noncitizens to apply for asylum may undermine the CNMI tourist industry. Consequently, the asylum exclusion is not “wholly irrational” and so does not violate Gu’s equal protection rights. Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 643 (2018) (citation omitted). Gu’s asylum claim, tethered to his equal protection claim, is foreclosed. 3. The evidence of record does not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals