With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the argument is without merit, as collateral estoppel merely requires that the party against whom the doctrine is invoked be a party in the prior case. See id. at 978. Neither are any of the other factors that we use to determine if a full and fair opportunity was present applicable. See Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1172 (10th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1167, 127 S.Ct. 1132, 166 L.Ed.2d 893 (2007) (explaining that whether there were significant procedural limitations in the prior proceeding, whether the party had the incentive to litigate the issue fully, and whether effective litigation was limited by the nature or relationship of the parties are relevant factors for the full and fair opportunity element). Therefore this element is established. See Frandsen, 46 F.3d at 979 (<HOLDING>). 9 . The "absolute immunity” available to

A: holding that the workproduct doctrine was inapplicable where there was no indication a memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation
B: holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate  
C: holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable
D: holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims
C.