Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30721/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30721-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30721

Summary Calendar

 

DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; KEVIN D. ROONEY; EDWARD 

J. MCELROY; BENEDICT FERRO; CARYL G. THOMPSON, Acting District

Director; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondents-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(02-CV-205)

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi appeals the

district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief,

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, from an order of removal pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). As an initial matter, the district

court had jurisdiction over the issues raised in this habeas

petition. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314 (2001). 

 Case: 03-30721 Document: 0051247765 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2004
2

Idokogi’s argument that his prior convictions for theft do not

qualify as aggravated felonies under the Immigration and

Naturalization Act is meritless. Each prior conviction involved

the receipt of stolen property, and he was sentenced to

imprisonment for a term of at least one year on each conviction.

See Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir. 2000); 8

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).

Idokogi’s arguments surrounding the process he received at the

removal proceeding is likewise without merit, as he fails to make

a showing of substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d

140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997). As Idokogi is not entitled to habeas

relief from the removal order, neither is he entitled to have his

removal held in abeyance while he collaterally challenges his 1998

conviction.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30721 Document: 0051247765 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2004