
    Malcolm BURBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirstjen NIELSEN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35760
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 5, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed January 9, 2018
    Nicklaus J. Misiti, Law offices of Niek-laus Misiti, PLLC., New York, NY, Devin T. Theriot-Orr, Attorney, Sunbird Law, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Joshua Samuel Press, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — -U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Ap-pellees
    Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief Unit- . ed States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation,
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Malcolm Burbank appeals the district court’s decision dismissing this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We vacate the district court’s order, remand, and instruct the district court to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

1. We lack — and the district court lacked — jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs statutory claims. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) clearly precludes judicial review of the Secretary’s “no risk” determinations because those determinations fall within the Secretary’s “sole and unreviewable discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Because each of Plaintiffs statutory claims challenges how the Secretary exercises that discretion, this court lacks jurisdiction to review them, City of Rialto v. W. Coast Loading Corp., 581 F.3d 865, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2009).

2. We lack — and the district court lacked — jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs claim regarding his fundamental right to marry. Assuming, without deciding, that the INA permits us to review colorable constitutional claims, Plaintiffs substantive due process claim is not a colorable one. A non-citizen’s deportation does not violate his or her family’s substantive due process rights. Morales-Izquierdo v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Holding otherwise here would undermine Congress’ plenary power over immigration. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982).

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      , The government argues that Plaintiff waived - a number of his statutory claims. Because those claims, too, are unreviewable, we need not consider whether Plaintiff waived them.
     