Belinda Santos v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1094 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1094 BELINDA SANTOS, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 1, 2013 Decided: July 11, 2013 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John T. Riely, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Belinda Santos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals immigration ( Board ) judge s order dismissing her appeal from the pretermitting her application for adjustment of status because she was statutorily ineligible for such relief. We deny the petition for review. Santos was admitted to the United States under a C-1 visa, as a crewman. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(c) (2006), aliens admitted as crewmen are not eligible for adjustment of status. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(b)(2) (2013). Santos acknowledges that she is statutorily barred from adjustment of status. She notes that nearly every other category of alien admitted to the United States is eligible for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. She argues that this statutory distinction violates her right to equal protection because it interferes with her fundamental right to marry. This Viegas v. court Holder, reviews 699 F.3d constitutional 798, 801 (4th claims Cir. de novo. 2012). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that there is no subject over which Congress has more power than the Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977). exclude aliens is a fundamental admission of aliens. The power to expel or power exercised by the Government s political departments largely immune from judicial 2 control. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79-80 (1976). Congress differently than decision other to aliens classify admitted to alien the crewmen United under other temporary visas has a rational basis. States See Guinto v. INS, 774 F.2d 991, 992 (9th Cir. 1985) (classifications among aliens in immigration statutes are evaluated under the rational basis test). A classification not involving a suspect class is upheld if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. Orquera v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 413, 425 (4th Cir. 2003). Congress could rationally have determined that seamen pose a special immigration without going problem through the because normal they visa reach process. our shores Thus the rational basis for denying seamen discretionary relief is to deter them from jumping ship. We conclude that Guinto, 774 F.2d at 992. the statutory scheme that makes Santos ineligible for adjustment of status does not violate her right to equal protection or the right to marry. we deny the petition for review. Accordingly, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 3 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.