ANTONIO MARTINEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70247 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO RENE MARTINEZ, AKA Rene martinez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70247 Agency No. A074-335-780 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Antonio Rene Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion to reopen, where, despite the vacatur of one of his convictions, he did not establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See id. (motion to reopen can be denied for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) (asylum is not available to aliens who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (same for withholding of removal). Although Martinez now contends that his conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is not a particularly serious crime, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-70247

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.