Bacchus v. Gonzales, No. 06-60209 (5th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60209 Summary Calendar REAAZ HAFIZ BACCHUS, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A44 268 181 -------------------Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 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. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 06-60209 -2Bacchus 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. of these issues before the BIA. jurisdiction to consider them. Bacchus did not raise any Accordingly, we lack 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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.