ANTONIO RENE MARTINEZ, AKA Rene martinez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO RENE MARTINEZ, AKA Rene
martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70247
Agency No. A074-335-780
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Rene Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
* 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 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70247
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion to
reopen, where, despite the vacatur of one of his convictions, he did not establish
prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See id. (motion to reopen can be denied
for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) (asylum is not available to aliens who have been convicted of a
particularly serious crime); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (same for withholding of
removal).
Although Martinez now contends that his conviction under California Penal
Code § 245(a)(1) is not a particularly serious crime, we lack jurisdiction to review
this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.
2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --