Rasheed v. Holder, No. 08-60282 (5th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-60282 Summary Calendar December 3, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk SAQIB ABDUL RASHEED, also know as Saqub Abdul Rasheed, 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. A43 961 471 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Saqib Abdul Rasheed 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 Rasheed was ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) because he had committed an aggravated felony. Rasheed, who has been convicted in state court of possession of controlled substances on more than one occasion since his admission to the * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. No. 08-60282 United States, contends that his second state misdemeanor conviction should not be treated as an aggravated felony under federal law because the decision allowing such treatment is no longer valid law. He also argues that his second conviction was not punishable under the federal recidivist drug-possession statute because he was not given proper notice of any intent to use the previous conviction to increase his sentence. The BIA correctly determined that Rasheed 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 federal notice requirement of 21 U.S.C. § 851 did not apply. See United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 336 n.11 (5th Cir. 2008). Rasheed s petition for review is DENIED. 2

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.