Case ID: f-appx_351/html/0904-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hopeton George SIMPSON, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-60874
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 30, 2009.
    Hopeton George Simpson, Jamaica, West Indies, pro se.
    Edward C. Durant, Samia Naseem, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Mario R. Ortiz, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service District, Director’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hopeton George Simpson petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order that Simpson was ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) because he had committed an aggravated felony. Simpson, who has been convicted in state court of possession of controlled substances on more than one occasion since his admission to the United States, contends that none of his convictions constitutes an aggravated felony in its own right. He argues that he should not be deemed an aggravated felon 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.

The BIA correctly determined that Simpson had committed an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263, 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.

Simpson’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.