Jose Rolando Blanco Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ROLANDO BLANCO MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70381
Agency No. A205-577-807
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rolando Blanco Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reconsider or certify his appeal. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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
APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70381
reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s summary dismissal of Blanco
Martinez’s appeal where he did not file a petition for review of that order. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Blanco Martinez’s motion to
reconsider where his motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior decision summarily dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a
motion to reconsider requires identification of factual or legal error in the prior
decision).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to certify Blanco
Martinez’s appeal. See Idrees v. Barr, 923 F.3d 539, 542–43 (9th Cir. 2019) (the
BIA’s discretionary decision not to certify petitioner’s claim was committed to
agency discretion and not subject to judicial review where no legal or
constitutional error was asserted).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --