Court Opinion

ID: 9939733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 17:00:43.598994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:52.319510
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 12 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR BAZURTO-ROMO,                       No.    23-15121

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00272-JCH

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
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.

                   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).
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

                                            2
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.

                                           3