Khalil Janjua v. Donald Neufeld

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KHALIL JANJUA, No. 17-16558 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 15-05475 EMC DONALD NEUFELD, Associate Director, USCIS Nebraska Service OPINION Center; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director, USCIS; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 14, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed August 9, 2019 2 JANJUA V. NEUFELD Before: J. Clifford Wallace, A. Wallace Tashima, and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Tashima SUMMARY* Immigration Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) and related defendants, the panel held that (1) for purposes of issue preclusion, an issue was “actually litigated” only if it was raised, contested, and submitted for determination in a prior adjudication, and (2) the issue of whether Khalil Janjua was inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds was not actually litigated in his asylum proceedings and, therefore, issue preclusion did not apply to his adjustment of status proceedings. Janjua, a native and citizen of Pakistan, was granted asylum and then applied for adjustment of status. USCIS denied his application on the ground that he was inadmissible for having supported a Tier III terrorist organization in connection with his involvement with the Muhajir Qaumi Movement in Pakistan. Janjua sought review of USCIS’s decision in the district court. Because the same terrorism-related grounds for * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. JANJUA V. NEUFELD 3 inadmissibility that bar asylum also bar adjustment of status, Janjua argued that issue preclusion prevented the government from raising terrorism-related inadmissibility in the adjustment of status proceedings because the immigration judge had necessarily concluded that Janjua was not inadmissible on these grounds when he granted Janjua asylum. The district court concluded that issue preclusion did not apply and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, bars the relitigation of an issue where four conditions are met: (1) the issue at stake was identical in both proceedings; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior proceedings; (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the issue was necessary to decide the merits. Here, the central question was whether Janjua’s inadmissibility for supporting a Tier III terrorist organization was “actually litigated” in his asylum proceeding. Assuming without deciding that issue preclusion applies in immigration adjustment of status proceedings, the panel held, consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and this court’s sister circuits, that an issue is “actually litigated” when an issue is raised, contested, and submitted for determination. The panel rejected Janjua’s argument that an issue should be considered ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals