
    Raul FERRUSCA-VEGA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-60612
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 8, 2015.
    Jason C. Mills, Law Offices of Jason Mills, P.L.L.C., Fort Worth, TX, for Petitioner.
    Jacob Alexander Bashyrov, U.S. Department of Justice, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raul Ferrusca-Vega (Ferrusca), a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the immigration judge denying his application for cancellation of removal. Ferrusca argues that he was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude occurred more than five years after he entered the United States. He asserts that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) encompasses only crimes involving moral turpitude that are committed within five years after the date of an alien’s admission and that, therefore, he has not been convicted of an offense under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C). He maintains that the deference normally given to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration law is inapplicable in this case because the BIA’s ruling was contrary to the plain language of the relevant statutes.

A panel of this court has previously rejected the argument raised by Ferrusca. See Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691, 696-98 (5th Cir.2012). We cannot overrule that decision absent an intervening statutory change, Supreme Court decision, or en banc decision of this court. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir.2008).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     