MARTINEZ-BEATA v LYNCH, No. 12-72086 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 29 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERNANDO MARTINEZ-BEATA, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-72086 Agency No. A078-752-702 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Fernando Martinez-Beata petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Martinez’s appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge denying his application for adjustment of status and ordering him removed. We deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1. Martinez was removed in 2000 under an expedited 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) removal order and later reentered the country illegally. CAR 67-68, 98. Illegal reentry after removal pursuant to an expedited §1225(b)(1) removal order renders an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) and, in turn, ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.§ 1255(i). See In re TorresGarcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866, 870-71 (B.I.A. 2006); Duran Gonzales v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 508 F.3d 1227, 1242 (9th Cir. 2007). 2. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(C), the BIA lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of the 2000 expedited removal order. We also lack statutory jurisdiction to review the validity of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i), (e); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004). 3. We do have jurisdiction, however, to consider Martinez’s petition for review, which contends that the BIA erred in denying his application for adjustment of status. For the reasons above, that petition is DENIED. 2

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.