Martinez Tosquez v. Blanche

── Martinez Tosquez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAHOMEY MARTINEZ TOSQUEZ, No. 21-1227 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-923-382 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Dahomey Martinez Tosquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for * 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). review. Martinez Tosquez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, so we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Martinez Tosquez’s cancellation of removal claim fails. We do not address Martinez Tosquez’s contentions as to continuous physical presence because the agency did not deny relief on this ground. 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)). Martinez Tosquez’s request for remand or administrative closure to seek prosecutorial discretion is denied. See Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2016) (government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion not subject to judicial review, and remand not warranted based on changes in policy). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 21-1227