and Submitted March 14, 2019 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge,
Presiding D.C. No. 15-05475 EMC
Russell (argued), San Francisco, California; Robert B. Jobe,
and Anna Benvenue, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San
Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kathrine J. Shinners (argued) and Brian C. Ward, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Gisela A. Westwater, Assistant Director;
William C. Peachey, Director; Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, A. Wallace Tashima, and M.
Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.
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
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
sought review of USCIS's decision in the district court.
Because the same terrorism-related grounds for
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
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.
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 actually
litigated if it was implicitly raised or if the
parties had a full and fair opportunity to raise it,
explaining that such a standard would conflate the separate
requirements that an issue be actually decided in the prior
proceedings and necessary to decide the merits.
the issue of whether Janjua was inadmissible on
terrorism-related grounds was not raised, contested, and
submitted for determination at his asylum proceeding, the
panel concluded that the issue was not actually litigated
and, thus, issue preclusion did not apply.
TASHIMA, CIRCUIT JUDGE
case we address, as a matter of first impression in our
Circuit, the standard for determining whether an issue was
"actually litigated" in a previous adjudication for
purposes of issue preclusion, also known as collateral
estoppel. We hold that an issue was actually litigated only
if it ...