MARTINEZ MESTANZA V. GARLAND, No. 22-1023 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 25 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE BLADIMIR MARTINEZ MESTANZA, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-1023 Agency No. A208-746-427 MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Jose Bladimir Martinez Mestanza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his * 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). applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Because Martinez Mestanza does not challenge the agency’s dispositive adverse credibility determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Martinez Mestanza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348, F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not address Martinez Mestanza’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Martinez Mestanza does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 22-1023

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.