Martinez Tosquez v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 21-1227
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAHOMEY MARTINEZ TOSQUEZ, No. 21-1227 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-923-382 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 22, 2026**

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

Dahomey Martinez Tosquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for

* 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). review.

Martinez Tosquez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he

failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying

relative, so we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Martinez Tosquez’s cancellation of removal claim

fails.

We do not address Martinez Tosquez’s contentions as to continuous physical

presence because the agency did not deny relief on this ground. 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)).

Martinez Tosquez’s request for remand or administrative closure to seek

prosecutorial discretion is denied. See Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822,

826-27 (9th Cir. 2016) (government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion not

subject to judicial review, and remand not warranted based on changes in policy).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 21-1227