is known.”- Id. The error Petitioner asserts in her Petition is the denial of her right to fair process under the Due Process Clause and the INA and FARRA. Consequently, isdiction of the United States are protected by the Due Process Clause, however, does not lead to the conclusion that all aliens are entitled to the same rights as citizens or to the conclusion that all aliens must be treated alike. See Mathews, 426 U.S. at 78, 96 S.Ct. 1883. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that, although the Due Process Clause protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation, .“the nature of that protection may vary depending upon status and circumstance.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 694, 121 S.Ct. 2491. See also Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 232-38, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (1896) (<HOLDING>). “The distinction between an alien who has
holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable holding that despite fact that congress could withhold judicial review of decision to not admit resident alien seeking readmission upon landing and vest decision exclusively with executive officers alien did have rights to due process to challenge provision of statute confining alien to year of hard labor holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient