Martinez Ramirez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-2324
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, No. 23-2324 Agency No. Petitioner, A077-289-010 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Martinez Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

* 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). Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings

sua sponte, other than for the limited purpose of reviewing for legal or

constitutional error. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020). We

find no legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s decision.

Martinez Ramirez’s equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan

Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) is foreclosed by

Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (court rejected

equal protection challenge to NACARA’s favorable treatment of applicants from

certain countries).

To the extent Martinez Ramirez contends that the BIA failed to adequately

articulate its reasons for the denial, the contention is not supported by the record.

See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not

write an exegesis on every contention).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 23-2324