Baltazar Martinez Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALTAZAR MARTINEZ LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72829
Agency No. A202-098-033
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Baltazar Martinez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen and reissue a decision.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
* 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).
FILED
SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-72829
law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Martinez Lopez does not make any arguments
challenging the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of sua sponte reopening,
where Martinez Lopez has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v.
Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review
Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing
the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”); see also Coyt
v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 904 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2010) (treating a motion to reissue as a
motion to reopen).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --