Jose Bladimir Martinez Mestanza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE BLADIMIR MARTINEZ
MESTANZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1023
Agency No.
A208-746-427
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
SEP 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-1023
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 of 2 --