Simpson v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

23 F. App'x 180
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 2002
Docket00-1708
StatusUnpublished

This text of 23 F. App'x 180 (Simpson v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Simpson v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 23 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Faithlyn Ann Simpson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen. Simpson was convicted in the District of Columbia of attempted possession of cocaine, for which she received a one-year suspended sentence and one year of probation. She contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen after she submitted evidence that her conviction has been expunged. Simpson insists that protections against deportation present in the Federal First Offenders Act extend to convictions expunged under state law, and that different treatment of those convicted under state law violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause. Simpson maintains that the expungement renders her eligible for relief in the form of suspension of deportation.

We are not persuaded by Simpson’s contention that her expunged drug offense does not constitute a “conviction” under immigration law, and thus conclude that we lack jurisdiction over her petition for review. See Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir.2000); Hall v. INS, 167 F.3d 852, 854-56 (4th Cir.1999); 8 U .S.C.A. § 1101(a)(48)(A), (B) (West 1999). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed. Having previously granted Simpson’s motion to consider the case on the briefs, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F. App'x 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-us-immigration-naturalization-service-ca4-2002.