Julio Cesar Bazurto-Romo v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

-- 1 of 3 --

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 of 3 --

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.

-- 3 of 3 --