Cesar Ernesto Sanchez- Ramirez v. the Consulate General of Mexico in San Francisco, California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR ERNESTO SANCHEZ-
RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF
MEXICO IN SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16791
D.C. No. 4:12-cv-03485-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Ernesto Sanchez-Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action alleging various claims arising from his
FILED
MAY 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

employment with the Consulate General of Mexico in San Francisco. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
determination of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt v. Lasheen, 603 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because Sanchez-Ramirez failed to show that his employment fell
within the commercial activity exception to immunity. See Terenkian v. Republic
of Iraq, 694 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (a plaintiff has the burden of
establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity; the commercial
activity exception applies only where a foreign state “exercises those powers that
can also be exercised by private citizens, or when it acts in the manner of a private
player within the market, but not when it exercises those powers peculiar to
sovereigns.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-16791 2

-- 2 of 2 --