NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 

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 Government”). 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 litigated 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 that 
3 

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, 871 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.