Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60612/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60612-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Ferrusca-Vega
Petitioner
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60612

Summary Calendar

RAUL FERRUSCA-VEGA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 244 014

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Ferrusca-Vega (Ferrusca), a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal from the order of the immigration judge denying his application for 

cancellation of removal. Ferrusca argues that he was statutorily eligible for 

cancellation of removal because his conviction for a crime involving moral 

turpitude occurred more than five years after he entered the United States. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-60612 Document: 00512998215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 14-60612

He asserts that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) encompasses 

only crimes involving moral turpitude that are committed within five years 

after the date of an alien’s admission and that, therefore, he has not been 

convicted of an offense under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) that renders him ineligible for 

cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). He maintains that 

the deference normally given to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration law is 

inapplicable in this case because the BIA’s ruling was contrary to the plain 

language of the relevant statutes.

A panel of this court has previously rejected the argument raised by 

Ferrusca. See Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691, 696-98 (5th Cir. 2012). We cannot 

overrule that decision absent an intervening statutory change, Supreme Court 

decision, or en banc decision of this court. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence 

Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2

Case: 14-60612 Document: 00512998215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015