the United States, the merits of his case would have resulted in a discretionary waiver under the statutory predecessor to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). The Attorney General held that the authority to grant such relief was not required to be exercised "at the precise time of readmission” but that a "later, corrective exercise” — described as nunc pro tunc —was proper. 14 . The court relied on the equal protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment, citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 1164 n. 4, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974), which stated that "if a classification would be invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is also inconsistent with the due process requirement of the Fifth Amendment.” 15 . But see Vargas v. Reno, 966 F.Supp. 1537, 1546 (S.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>); Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 977 F.Supp. 1089,
recognizing that time place and manner restrictions must be content neutral holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel holding that section 440d was facially neutral and intended to apply both to excludable and deporlable aliens holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that amendments to procedure apply to both pending and future matters