Dante Martinez-Lizalde v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANTE MARTINEZ-LIZALDE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-56127
D.C. No.
5:19-cv-02480-MCS-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Dante Martinez-Lizalde appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d
367, 370 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
* 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
OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-56127
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Lizalde’s challenges to his
criminal convictions because these claims were not certified for appeal. See Beaty
v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction
to resolve the merits of any claim for which a COA is not granted.”); see also
Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (order) (holding that a
successive § 2255 motion disguised as a § 2241 petition requires a COA). To the
extent Martinez-Lizalde seeks reconsideration of this court’s denial of a COA as to
that claim, it is denied.
To the extent Martinez-Lizalde challenges his final order of removal, the
district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the
issue. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005)
(REAL ID Act “eliminated habeas jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal”); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (notwithstanding § 2241 or any other habeas provision,
“a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the
sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”).
Martinez-Lizalde fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any argument that
the district court erred in its remaining conclusions. See Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-56127
557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --