Simpson v. Holder

Filing

REVISED UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [6399237-2] [08-60874]

Simpson v. Holder

Doc. 0

Case: 08-60874 Document: 00511269994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2010

REVISED OCTOBER 21, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED
N o . 08-60874 S u m m a r y Calendar October 30, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk H O P E T O N GEORGE SIMPSON P e titio n e r v. E R I C H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A21 041 361

B e fo r e REAVLEY, GARZA, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* H o p e t o n George Simpson petitions this court to review the decision of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the im m ig r a t io n judge's (IJ) order that Simpson was ineligible for cancellation of r e m o v a l pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) because he had committed an a g g r a v a t e d felony. Simpson, who has been convicted in state court of possession o f controlled substances on more than one occasion since his admission to the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion s h o u ld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited c ir c u m s t a n c e s set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-60874 Document: 00511269994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2010 No. 08-60874 U n ite d States, contends that none of his convictions constitutes an aggravated fe lo n y in its own right. He argues that he should not be deemed an aggravated fe lo n based on his recidivism because he was not convicted of a recidivist offense in state court. Simpson also argues that the rule of lenity should be applied. T h e BIA correctly determined that Simpson had committed an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 2 6 3 , 266-68 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (July 15, 2009) (No. 09-60). The rule of lenity is not applicable given this court's interpretation of the relevant statutory language. Id. at 268 n.7. S im p s o n 's petition for review is DENIED.

2