160 F. Supp. 3d 1199
C.D. Cal.2016Background
- Khan, a Pakistani national and former MQM—A member, was granted asylum in 2006 after the BIA reversed an IJ credibility-based denial and the IJ subsequently granted asylum.
- Khan applied for adjustment to permanent resident (I-485) in 2007; USCIS placed adjudication on hold for years under a policy awaiting possible discretionary exemptions.
- In April 2015 USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny, asserting Khan provided material support to MQM—A, which USCIS treated as an undesignated terrorist organization; USCIS denied the I-485 in June 2015.
- Khan sued, arguing collateral estoppel bars USCIS from denying adjustment based on terrorist-activity grounds because the asylum grant necessarily decided he was not barred for terrorist activity.
- Defendants argued collateral estoppel does not apply to USCIS adjustment adjudications and, alternatively, that Khan failed to satisfy collateral-estoppel elements.
- The district court held collateral estoppel applies here and granted Khan summary judgment, setting aside USCIS’s denial under the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel can bind USCIS in an adjustment adjudication | Khan: asylum grant necessarily decided he did not engage in terrorist activity, so USCIS is precluded | DHS: INA contemplates a fresh "at the time of examination" inquiry; Congress did not intend administrative preclusion | Court: Collateral estoppel presumptively applies to agencies absent contrary intent; INA does not show intent to bar preclusion; estoppel may apply when facts unchanged |
| Whether the issue of terrorist activity was actually litigated/decided in asylum proceedings | Khan: IJ/BIA grant of asylum necessarily required a finding that he was not statutorily barred for terrorist activity | DHS: asylum record did not expressly resolve terrorist-activity issue; prior proceedings didn’t focus on it | Court: Because an IJ cannot grant asylum if §1158 bars (including terrorist activity) apply, the question was necessarily decided despite lack of explicit language |
| Whether the issues in asylum and adjustment proceedings are identical | Khan: both rely on the same factual record and identical legal definition of "terrorist activity" from §1182(a)(3)(B) | DHS: different benefits and purposes; adjustment allows a broader inquiry and distinct statutory considerations | Court: Issues are identical here — same facts and same legal standard — so preclusion applies |
| Remedy for USCIS denial | Khan: set aside denial and grant adjustment | DHS: defend denial | Court: USCIS collateral estopped from denying adjustment on terrorist-activity ground; plaintiff’s summary judgment granted; USCIS denial set aside under 5 U.S.C. §706 |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (presumption that common-law preclusion applies to agencies)
- Belayneh v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.) (issue preclusion applies in immigration proceedings)
- In re Harmon, 250 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir.) (issue preclusion may apply when prior court necessarily decided the issue)
- Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir.) (issue preclusion where only rational finding supports prior decision)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (elements of issue preclusion)
- Amrollah v. Napolitano, 710 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.) (IJ asylum grant precluded USCIS denial on terrorist-activity grounds)
- Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.) (scope of agency abuse of discretion review)
- Fence Creek Cattle Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 602 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- BDPCS, Inc. v. F.C.C., 351 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir.) (affirm when any independent adequate ground supports agency action)