N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AUL GREGOR IO ULLOAGUTIER R EZ, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-70525 Age n c y No. A037-801-784
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2020 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and IKUTA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd SC HR EIER , *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ka re n E. Sc hre ie r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of South Da

kota , sitting by

de signa tion.R a

ul Gre gorio Ulloa -Gutie rre z pe titions for re v ie w of a de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) holding tha t he is issuepre c lude d from
re litiga ting fa c ts unde rly ing his de rivative c itiz e nship c la i m . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(1), and we de ny the pe t ition. 1. Jurisdic tion: Ulloa -Gutie rre z ’ s jurisdic tiona l a rgum e nt fa i ls. The la c k of
a tim e , date , a

nd pla c e in the notic e to a p pe ar did not de

p rive the im

m igration c ourt of jurisdic tion be c a

use Ulloa -Gutie rre z wa s provide d suffic ie nt notic e of the loc ation a nd tim e of the he aring. Se e Aguilar Fe rmin v . Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th C ir. 2020). 2. Issue Pre c l usion: TheB IA c orre c t ly he ld tha t Ulloa -Gutie rre z wa s issue pre c lude d by

a prior de c ision by

an Im m i gra tion Judge(“ IJ” ) that he la c ke d de rivative c itiz e nship be c a use his m o the r, a

Unite d State s c i tiz e n , ha d not live d in the c ountry

for one y e ar be fore he wa s born. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1409(c ). Issue pre c lusion m ay

a pply whe n an a ge nc y a c ts in a judic ia l c a

pa c ity to re solve dispute d issue s tha

t a re prope rly

be fore it. Se e B & B Hardw are , Inc . v . Hargis Indus., Inc

. , 575 U.S. 138, 147–49 (2015); se e also , e . g. , Ramon-Se p ulv e da v . IN

S , 824 F.2d 749, 750 (9th C ir. 1987) (pe r c uriam ) (a p ply ing issuepre c lusion in
re m ova l proc e e d ings). Issue pre c lusion a pplie s whe n: “ (1) the issue a t sta ke wa s ide n tic a l in both proc e e dings; (2) the issue wa s a c tua lly

litiga te d and de c ide d in the
2prior proc e e dings; (3) the re wa s a full a n d fa ir opportunity to litiga te the issue ; a

nd (4) the issue wa s ne c e s sa

ry to de c ide the m e rits.” Oy e niran v . Holde r , 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th C ir. 2012). All four c onditions a re sat isfie d he re . First, the issue wa s ide n t ic a l in both proc e e dings: whe the r R osa , Ulloa
Gutie rre z ’ s m othe r, live d i n the Unite d State s for at le a st a y e ar be fore Ulloa
Gutie rre z ’ s birth. Se c ond, the issue wa s a c tua lly litiga te d a nd de c ide d in the prior proc e e ding. S

e e J anjua v . N

e ufe ld , 933 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th C ir. 2019)

. He re , R osa ’ s re side nc y

wa s the c e ntra l issue in the prior proc e e ding. The IJ he ld two he arings, a

nd the issue wa s de c ide d on the m e rits. Third, Ulloa -Gutie rre z m ust have ha d a

“ full a n d fa ir opportunity

to litiga te the issue ” in the prior proc e e ding. He argue s tha

t not a ll re le va

nt e vide nc e wa s pre se nte d, but he did not la c k the opportunity

to pre se nt it. Se e Oy e niran , 672 F.3d a t 807 (noting tha

t the

“ introduc tion of ne w e v i de nc e . . . is not a n e x c e p tion” to issuepre c lusion). Ine ffe c tive ne ss of c ounse l doe s not e sta blish tha t a litiga nt la c ke d a

“ full a nd fa ir opportunity

to litiga te .” 1 Fourth, the issue wa s ne c e ssa ry to de c ide the m e rits in the prior proc e e ding.

1 It is true tha

t, in a n unsigne d dra ft opinion, the IJ we ighe d the e vide nc e diffe re ntly . B u t this doc um e n t ha s no le ga l signific an c e , a nd if c onside re d, it only we a ke ns Ulloa -Gutie rre z ’ s a rgum e n t be c a

use it indic a te s tha

t the IJ fully c onside re d a ll side s of the issue
. 33. Othe r Argum e nts: Ulloa -Gutie rre z argue s tha t the IJ in this c a se

“ m isa pplie d, m isunde rstood, a

nd/or c onfuse d the diffe re nt burde ns or proof.” Howe ve r, in a

pply ing issuepre c lusion, the IJ did not find a

ny fa c ts a nd did not re ly
on a burde n of proof. Ulloa -Gutie rre z a lso a rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d in ba sing its de c ision on the

de nia ls of his N-600 a

pplic a tions. TheB IA e xplic itly sta te d tha t it did not ba se its de c ision on the s e de nia ls. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4