CAFC Rejects Nebraska Man's 2nd Appeal of April 2018 Customs Broker Exam
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 19 affirmed the Court of International Trade's dismissal of Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's second case on one question in the April 2018 customs broker license exam. Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Kara Stoll agreed with the trade court that the case should be dismissed "on the basis of claim preclusion."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Claim preclusion bars litigation on issues that could and should have "reasonably been brought" in an earlier lawsuit. The doctrine applies when the parties are the same, the first lawsuit "proceeded to a final judgment on the merits" and the second case is based on the "same set of transactional facts as the first."
The court, in a per curium decision, said all three prongs are met here. While Chae didn't dispute that the first two prongs are met, Chae's second case is "directed to whether he should be credited as answering Question 27" of the test correctly. The Federal Circuit said this is the "identical issue litigated in Mr. Chae’s first appearance at the Trade Court."
After CIT dismissed the man's second case for claim preclusion, Chae argued for the first time on appeal that "claim preclusion does not apply because the law relevant to Question 27 was unsettled when he took his examination in April 2018." The appellate court found this argument waived, since it was raised for the first time on appeal.
The court said that while it's usually less stringent in requiring parties to raise before the lower court when those parties are representing themselves in court, as Chae is, the court said it's choosing "not to exercise such authority in this appeal."
Following Chae's first foray before CIT and the Federal Circuit, the man ended up one correctly answered question shy of a passing grade (see 2310300023). In his second case, Chae argued that he should receive credit for question 27 on the exam, which concerns the definition of mail articles not subject to examination or inspection by CBP (see 2409030022).
Before the Federal Circuit, Chae specifically argued that when he took the exam, he was following U.S. v. Baxter, but after the exam, the law changed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit vacated that decision. Chae said this change in law "was something new" that he could not have presented in his first case.
(Byungmin Chae v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1379, dated 11/19/25; Judges: Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Kara Stoll; Attorneys: Byungmin Chae, pro se; Marcella Powell for defendant-appellee U.S. government)