Case Name: Reaaz Hafiz BACCHUS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 225 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 06-60209
Parties: Reaaz Hafiz BACCHUS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Reaaz Hafiz BACCHUS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60209
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 19, 2007.
Frank J. Hancock, Forest Hills, NY, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Don George Scroggin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reaaz Hafiz Bacchus, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The IJ determined that Bacchus was ineligible for cancellation of removal after Bacchus admitted in his application and at his hearing to two possession-of-marijuana convictions that occurred before he had been in the United States for seven years.
Bacchus argues (1) that his due process rights were violated when his notice to appear was amended to charge convictions that he admitted in his application for cancellation of removal, (2) that smoking marijuana is not a crime of moral turpitude, and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support an offer to prove the two non-charged convictions that he admitted where the only record produced was a rap sheet. Bacchus did not raise any of these issues before the BIA. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Bacchus's petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.