Court Opinion

ID: 9865386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:00:56.232459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:21.546300
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE BLADIMIR MARTINEZ                          No. 22-1023
MESTANZA,                                       Agency No.
                                                A208-746-427
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

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