IGNACIO MARTINEZ TORRES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-72511 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IGNACIO MARTINEZ-TORRES, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72511 Agency No. A088-119-950 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ignacio Martinez-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Martinez-Torres does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as time- and number-barred. See CorroBarragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). To the extent Martinez-Torres contends the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his case, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). To the extent Martinez-Torres challenges the BIA’s December 13, 2011 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider that contention, because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Torres’ request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). We do not consider the extra-record documentation that Martinez-Torres submitted with his opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(judicial review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review for out-of-record evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-72511
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
