Filed: Mar. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 3, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60603 Summary Calendar FELIPE AGADO-RIVAS, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A91-832-804 - Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Felipe Agado-Rivas (Agado) petitions for review of the
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 3, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60603 Summary Calendar FELIPE AGADO-RIVAS, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A91-832-804 - Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Felipe Agado-Rivas (Agado) petitions for review of the B..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 3, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60603
Summary Calendar
FELIPE AGADO-RIVAS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A91-832-804
--------------------------------------------------------
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Felipe Agado-Rivas (Agado) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the
Board’s) denial of his motion to reconsider its decision finding him removable and ineligible for
cancellation of removal due to his prior conviction for possession of cocaine. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a). Since Agado’s possession-of-cocaine conviction is appropriately
classified as an aggravated felony, this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition for review.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
See United States v. Hernandez-Avalos,
251 F.3d 505, 510 (5th Cir. 2001); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C). Based on the foregoing, Agado’s petition for review is DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION.
-2-