Aguirre-Aguirre v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 23-3005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONATO AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, No. 23-3005 Agency No. Petitioner, A027-731-787 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: MILLER, LEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Ramon Martinez Garcia 1 (“Martinez”) petitions for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings

based on new evidence after the BIA dismissed his appeal from an immigration

* 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). 1 Donato Aguirre-Aguirre is a name that Martinez previously used. We use Martinez’s legal name. judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for adjustment of status and voluntary

departure. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to review

discretionary decisions granting or denying relief from removal, including

adjustment of status and voluntary departure. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 347

(2022). This limitation extends “to factual judgments made in the course of ruling

on procedural motions,” such as motions to reopen proceedings. Figueroa Ochoa v.

Garland, 91 F.4th 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 2024).

Martinez seeks to reopen his case based on new evidence that he believes

undermines the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations and findings of abuse, on

which the IJ based his denial of discretionary relief. The BIA denied the motion to

reopen because it found that, even if the new evidence were true, it would not likely

change the outcome of Martinez’s case. Because Martinez’s claims challenge only

the factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, we lack

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision.

The temporary stay of removal will remain in place until the issuance of the

mandate, and the motion to stay removal, Dkt. 3, is otherwise denied.

The petition is DISMISSED.

2 23-3005