933 F.3d 1061
9th Cir.2019Background
- Khalil Janjua, a Pakistani national and former MQM member, was granted asylum in 2007 after IJ credibility findings; the asylum merits hearing focused on his MQM activities and persecution he suffered.
- The original NTA charged only unlawful entry; terrorism-related inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) was never raised in the asylum proceeding.
- Congress later expanded the terrorist inadmissibility provisions to encompass Tier III groups; MQM was later characterized by USCIS as a Tier III terrorist organization.
- Janjua applied for adjustment of status in 2008; USCIS denied his I-485 in 2016, finding he had provided material support and solicited funds for MQM and thus was inadmissible.
- Janjua argued issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) barred USCIS from relitigating terrorism-related inadmissibility because asylum was previously granted; the government argued the terrorism issue was not actually litigated at asylum and thus preclusion did not apply.
- District court held issue preclusion applies in adjustment proceedings but found the terrorism inadmissibility issue was not "actually litigated" during the asylum hearing; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Janjua's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the terrorism-related inadmissibility issue was "actually litigated" in the prior asylum proceeding for collateral estoppel purposes | The asylum grant necessarily decided he was not inadmissible on terrorism grounds, so issue preclusion bars relitigation | The terrorism inadmissibility was never raised, contested, or submitted to the IJ at asylum, so it was not actually litigated and preclusion does not apply | An issue is "actually litigated" only if raised, contested, and submitted for determination; terrorism inadmissibility was not, so issue preclusion does not apply |
| Whether the standard for "actually litigated" may be met by implicit raising or merely a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate | Implicit raising or existence of a fair opportunity should suffice to trigger preclusion | Those standards conflate separate elements; actually litigated requires the issue to have been raised, contested, and submitted | Court rejected implicit-raise and opportunity-only rules; those conflate issue and claim preclusion and are insufficient |
| Whether issue preclusion applies in adjustment-of-status proceedings under the INA | (Assumed) Janjua implicitly urged applicability | Government disputed application in context but district court assumed it applied; Ninth Circuit assumed without deciding | Ninth Circuit assumed issue preclusion can apply in these proceedings but resolved case on actual-litigation element |
| Whether prior adjudication necessarily decides related but unraised inadmissibility grounds when relief is granted | Janjua argued grant of asylum necessarily decided all automatic bars | Government argued only issues actually raised/contested are precluded | Court distinguished "necessarily decided" from "actually litigated": some issues may be necessary to a judgment, but issue preclusion still requires the issue be actually litigated |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1979) (issue preclusion requires issue to have been actually and necessarily determined)
- Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1974) (judgment estops only matters actually in issue and contested)
- Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1876) (early articulation limiting preclusion to matters actually litigated)
- Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012) (issue preclusion elements and emphasis on whether issue was raised and contested)
- Paulo v. Holder, 669 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2011) (issue preclusion applied where eligibility was raised, contested, and necessarily decided despite different arguments)
- Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992) (distinguishing necessarily decided issues from actually litigated issues)