Daniel v. Secretary of The Department of Homeland Security, 1:17-cv-20965

Plaintiff Luis Enrique Daniel, a Cuban national, applied for adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act (CAA); USCIS found him eligible but denied relief as a matter of discretion based on adverse factors (e.g., prior work for Cuban Ministry of the Interior and CIMEX).
Daniel filed a prior suit (Daniel I) challenging USCIS’s denial of his motion for reconsideration; he conceded the underlying discretionary denial was unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
The district court dismissed Daniel I for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, noting Daniel’s concession that the discretionary denial was unreviewable.
Daniel subsequently filed the instant action, contradicting his prior concession and alleging judicial review of the discretionary denial is available under the INA.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata bars the new suit because it arises from the same operative facts and Daniel could have raised the discretionary-denial claim earlier.
The court held Daniel I’s dismissal was a final judgment on the merits (dismissal for failure to state a claim with prejudice), found the present action arises from the same nucleus of operative facts, and dismissed the current complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) on res judicata grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the current suit is barred by res judicata	Daniel argues this suit is distinct and challenges the discretionary denial (contrary to his earlier concession)	Defendants argue all elements of res judicata are met because claims arise from same facts and prior judgment was final on merits	Court: Res judicata applies; dismissal with prejudice
Whether the prior dismissal was a final judgment on the merits	Daniel disputed that Daniel I produced a final merits judgment because it involved jurisdictional concerns	Defendants pointed to the district court’s alternative Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice and Eleventh Circuit affirmance	Court: Prior dismissal included a merits ruling (12(b)(6) with prejudice) and counts as a final judgment
Whether the current claim could have been raised in Daniel I	Daniel contended the underlying discretionary-denial claim was improper to raise earlier	Defendants noted the factual basis existed and Daniel’s concession prevented adjudication then	Court: Claim existed and could have been raised; res judicata bars it
Whether alternative grounds for dismissal need ruling	Plaintiff implicitly sought review despite prior procedural posture	Defendants raised other bases to dismiss (not reached)	Court: Declined to reach alternative grounds after applying res judicata

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard framework)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (res judicata bars successive litigation of same claim)
Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (res judicata prohibits relitigating issues that were or could have been raised)
In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.) (same cause of action: "same nucleus of operative fact")
Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing jurisdictional dismissal from merits dismissal for res judicata)
Maldonado v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 664 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir.) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised)
Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. N.C. Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691 (a party cannot escape res judicata by failing to raise matters within scope of prior proceeding)