Hien Phi Hoang v. Ashcroft

Fifth Circuit

Hien Phi Hoang v. Ashcroft

96 F. App'x 257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2004

Docket03-60514

StatusUnpublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 257 (Hien Phi Hoang v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hien Phi Hoang v. Ashcroft, 96 F. App'x 257 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Hien Phi Hoang appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal for having been convicted of an aggravated felony for which a sentence of at least one year was imposed. Hoang, who pleaded guilty in 1998 to the Louisiana crime of being an accessory after the fact, argues that this court should look beyond the fact of conviction and the definition of the offense to determine whether he actually committed an aggravated felony. However, this court does not allow the review of immigration proceedings to be used as a forum for collateral attacks on related convictions. See Howard v. INS, 930 F.2d 432, 434-35 (5th Cir.1991); Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981). Because Hoang was convicted of an aggravated felony, this court lacks jurisdiction over his petition. See Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415, 420, 433 (5th Cir.2001). The petition is DISMISSED.

The Respondent has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the BIA’s decision. That motion is DENIED as UNNECESSARY. Petitioner’s motion to amend is DENIED as MOOT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Hien Phi Hoang appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal for having been convicted of an aggravated felony for which a sentence of at least one year was imposed. Hoang, who pleaded guilty in 1998 to the Louisiana crime of being an accessory after the fact, argues that this court should look beyond the fact of conviction and the definition of the offense to determine whether he actually committed an aggravated felony. However, this court does not allow the review of immigration proceedings to be used as a forum for collateral attacks on related convictions. See Howard v. INS, 930 F.2d 432, 434-35 (5th Cir.1991); Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981). Because Hoang was convicted of an aggravated felony, this court lacks jurisdiction over his petition. See Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415, 420, 433 (5th Cir.2001). The petition is DISMISSED.

The Respondent has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the BIA’s decision. That motion is DENIED as UNNECESSARY. Petitioner’s motion to amend is DENIED as MOOT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hien-phi-hoang-v-ashcroft-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack