Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0557-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammed Kamal HOSSAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17754.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Mohammed Kamal Hossain, Saipan, MP, pro se.
    Kathleen Rose Busenkell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Eric S. O’Malley, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USNMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Saipan, MP, Jessica Friday Cruz, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagat-na, GU, Samuel P. Go, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for De~ fendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammed Kamal Hossain appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging violations of federal and international law resulting from the unavailability of derivative non-refoulement status for his family. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1053, — L.Ed.2d - (2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Hossain’s action is precluded by both the doctrine of res judicata and the contractual obligations imposed by the settlement of his first action, as this action involves the same claims that Hossain raised or could have raised in his prior action. See Intl. Union of Operating Engrs. v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir.1993) (applying res judicata to bar action raising claims that were dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement).

We do not consider Hossain’s arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Cade, 236 F.3d 463, 467 (9th Cir.2000).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.