Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Roberto Calero v. Loretta Lynch, 4th Cir. (2015)
Roberto Calero v. Loretta Lynch, 4th Cir. (2015)
Roberto Calero v. Loretta Lynch, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 15-1056
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Ramon Calero, a native and citizen of Nicaragua,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
(Board)
dismissing
his
appeal
from
the
immigration
We deny the
years suspended.
took
place
in
Antonio,
Texas,
were
terminated
without
Homeland
filed
Security
(NTA),
again
(DHS)
charging
Calero
second
with
Notice
to
Appear
removability
as
an
See 8
the
doctrines
of
res
judicata
and
collateral
estoppel
for
Caleros
first
removal
2
proceedings,
which
were
of
the
issue
and
Caleros
appeal.
This
to
U.S.C.
1252(a)(2)(C)
(2012),
we
lack
to
review
the
final
order
of
removal
of
an
alien
Under
factual
1252(a)(2)(C),
determinations
we
that
retain
trigger
jurisdiction
the
to
jurisdiction-
[ ]he
has
been
convicted
of
an
aggravated
felony.
If we
are
then,
able
under
to
confirm
U.S.C.
constitutional
these
two
factual
1252(a)(2)(C),
claims
or
(D),
questions
determinations,
we
of
may
only
law.
consider
8
U.S.C.
judicata
or
collateral
estoppel
foreclosed
the
DHS
from
See Johnson v.
We review
(1) a final
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
[C]ollateral
issues
that
were
actually
action.
determined
in
prior
IJs
conclusion
that
the
decision
to
terminate
Caleros
makes
to
plain,
the
DHS
this
termination
ability
to
decision
later
charge
was
without
Calero
with
See Cooter
& Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990) (explaining
that, when a case is dismissed without prejudice, that dismissal
does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits, and thus
does not have a res judicata effect (alteration, citation, and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Mann v. Haigh, 120 F.3d 34,
36 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Cooter & Gell for same proposition).
We reach the same result in terms of Caleros collateral
estoppel
argument.
Despite
his
suggestion
to
the
contrary,
and
necessarily
decided
in
prior
litigation
See Alvear-Velez
v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 672, 682 n.6 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting
similar
argument
because,
although
reopening
was
an
option,
the
difference
between
administrative
closure
of
have
been
terminated
and
there
is
no
successful
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED