Asemani v. Chertoff

D.C. Circuit

Asemani v. Chertoff

169 F. App'x 588

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 6, 2005

DocketNo. 05-5174

StatusPublished

This text of 169 F. App'x 588 (Asemani v. Chertoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asemani v. Chertoff, 169 F. App'x 588 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s final judgment, filed April 21, 2005, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the basis of collateral estoppel, be affirmed. In a separate action, by order filed April 27, 2004, the district court denied appellant’s motion for a judicial declaration of nationality, and by order filed June 10, 2004, that court entered a final judgment. See Asemani v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 266 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C.2003).

Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, when a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision precludes relitigation of an issue “in substance the same” as that resolved in an earlier proceeding. See Dunn v. F.D.I.C., 172 F.3d 919 (D.C.Cir.1998), citing Kidwell v. Army, 56 F.3d 279, 286-87 (D.C.Cir.1995), and SEC v. Bilzerian, 29 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s final judgment, filed April 21, 2005, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the basis of collateral estoppel, be affirmed. In a separate action, by order filed April 27, 2004, the district court denied appellant’s motion for a judicial declaration of nationality, and by order filed June 10, 2004, that court entered a final judgment. See Asemani v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 266 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C.2003).

Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, when a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision precludes relitigation of an issue “in substance the same” as that resolved in an earlier proceeding. See Dunn v. F.D.I.C., 172 F.3d 919 (D.C.Cir.1998), citing Kidwell v. Army, 56 F.3d 279, 286-87 (D.C.Cir.1995), and SEC v. Bilzerian, 29 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F. App'x 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asemani-v-chertoff-cadc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack