IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60226

Summary Calendar

ADEGBENGA TITO IJADIMINI,

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. A026 399 033

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adegbenga Tito Ijadimini, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for 

review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). He was removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien 

convicted of an aggravated felony based on his conviction for solicitation of 

capital murder. However, he does not address the BIA’s determination that he 

is removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Accordingly, he 

* 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

December 30, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60226 Document: 00512484377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2013
No. 13-60226

has abandoned any challenge to that determination. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Ijadimini has failed to show that the BIA erred in concluding that the 

instant removal proceedings were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

See Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 545 (5th Cir. 2006). Although earlier 

deportation proceedings were terminated on the Government’s motion, the 

termination was without prejudice, and there was no final judgment on the 

merits of Ijadimini’s deportability. See id. The fact that Ijadimini was

recharged under a different statutory provision did not preclude the instant 

proceedings. See Peters v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2004).

Likewise, the BIA did not err in determining that Ijadimini was 

ineligible for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c)

because he was not eligible for that relief at the time of his conviction and 

sentencing. See Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 672, 673-77 (5th Cir. 

2007). Although Ijadimini argues that he was eligible for relief during the 

original 1997 deportation proceedings because he had not yet served five years 

of imprisonment, “there is nothing in the statute or the policies served by the 

statutory framework clearly contradicting the BIA’s construction.” Id. at 676-

77.

Additionally, although Ijadimini argues that he was prevented from 

applying for § 212(c) relief as a result of various due process violations, § 212(c) 

relief is not a property or liberty interest warranting due process protection. 

See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, he has 

failed to make the initial showing of substantial prejudice necessary to prevail 

on any of his due process claims. See De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 

(5th Cir. 2004).

2

 Case: 13-60226 Document: 00512484377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2013
No. 13-60226

Finally, insofar as he argues that his state conviction was void on its face 

because the record did not reflect that the visiting trial judge filed the required 

oaths prior to his trial, “a lack of filing of any required oath is not proof, in 

itself, of the failure of the judge to take the constitutionally required oaths.”

See Murphy v. State, 95 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Tex. App. 2002). Accordingly, the 

BIA’s determination that Ijadimini had failed to make the required showing

was not erroneous. See id.

The petition for review is DENIED. The motion for the appointment of 

counsel also is DENIED.

3

 Case: 13-60226 Document: 00512484377 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2013