NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR BAZURTO

- ROMO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS; UR M. JADDOU, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; JULIE M. HASHIMOTO, Field Office Director, Tucson Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 23

- 15121
D.C. No. 4:22

- cv - 00272

- JCH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 6, 2024 * * Phoenix, Arizona Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Julio Cesar Bazurto

- Romo (“Bazurto

- Romo”) filed this action against

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 12 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and Julie M. Hashimoto, Field Office Director, USCIS Tucson Office (collectively, “the G overnment”). Bazurto

- Romo appeals the district court’s decision to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s granting of a motion to dismiss de novo. First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera , 860 F.3d 1263, 1271 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
Bazurto

- Romo challenges USCIS’s 2021 denial of his motion to reopen his application for a certificate of citizenship. The Government argued that the district court should dismiss Bazurto

- Romo’s action because the same issue of subject matter jurisdiction presented in this action was fully litigate d in his 2020 action challenging the initial denial of his application for a certificate of citizenship

. Bazurto

- Romo v. Barr , No. CV

- 19

- 05135

- PHX

- DLR , 2020 WL 3488577, at *2

– 4 (D. Ariz. June 26, 2020) (granting the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Accordingly, the district court concluded that issue preclusion barred Bazurto

- Romo from relitigating subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding. The district court properly granted preclusive effect to the 2020 district court’s decision. See Taylor v. Sturgell , 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (explaining that3

issue preclusion bars “ ‘ successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, ’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” ( quoting New Hampshire v. Maine , 532 U.S. 742, 748

– 49 (2001) ) ). The issue of subject matter jurisdiction was actually litigated and decided in Bazurto

- Romo’s prior action , and Bazurto

- Romo had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. See Howard v. City of Coos Bay , 87 1 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting out the elements of issue preclusion) ; Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v Landy , 370 F.2d 46, 50 (9th Cir. 1966) (issue preclusion “applies to determination of questions of jurisdiction as well as to determination of other issues

. ”)

. Because we conclude that issue preclusion applies, we do not reach whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in the absence of issue preclusion. Nor do we consider Bazurto

- Romo’s alternative jurisdictional arguments not raised in the opening brief. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne , 520 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
AFFIRMED.