BALTAZAR MARTINEZ LOPEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-72829 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALTAZAR MARTINEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-72829 Agency No. A202-098-033 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Baltazar Martinez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen and reissue a decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of * 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). law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Martinez Lopez does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. See LopezVasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of sua sponte reopening, where Martinez Lopez has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”); see also Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 904 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2010) (treating a motion to reissue as a motion to reopen). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 19-72829

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.