then has either (a) been convicted of an aggravated felony, or (b) not resided in the United States for seven continuous years. Id at § 1182(h). Petitioner argues that he is entitled to seek relief under § 1182(h) because denying him eligibility under this section would violate the equal protection component in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the statute makes an impermissible distinction because it treats lawful permanent residents and non-lawful permanent residents differently without a rational basis for its decision. Respondents argue that there is no equal protection violation because lawful permanent residents and non-lawful permanent residents are not similarly situated. See Jankowski-Burczyk v. INS, 291 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). While neither party mentioned so in their
holding that since congress created separate classifications for lawful permanent residents lprs and nonlawful permanent residents nlprs and treated each class differently throughout the immigration statutes lprs and nonlprs are not similarly situated and different treatment of them does not violate the equal protection component of the due process clause holding that defendants are not similarly situated for sentencing purposes where one defendant accepts responsibility but the other does not holding that dawful permanent residents and nonlawful permanent residents are not similarly situated holding that black residents failed to state an equal protection claim where they did not allege the existence of a similarly situated group of white residents who were treated differently holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions