Belinda Santos v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Belinda Santos, a native and citizen of the
Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s order 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 court reviews constitutional claims de novo.
Viegas v. Holder, 699 F.3d 798, 801 (4th Cir. 2012). The
Supreme Court has acknowledged that there is no subject over
which Congress has more power than the admission of aliens.
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977). The power to expel or
exclude aliens is a fundamental power exercised by the
Government’s “political departments largely immune from judicial

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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’ decision to classify alien crewmen
differently than other aliens admitted to the United States
under other temporary visas has a rational basis. 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 problem because they reach our shores
without going through the normal visa process. Thus the
rational basis for denying seamen discretionary relief is to
deter them from ‘jumping ship.’” Guinto, 774 F.2d at 992.
We conclude that the statutory scheme that makes
Santos ineligible for adjustment of status does not violate her
right to equal protection or the right to marry. Accordingly,
we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

-- 3 of 4 --

4
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --