NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANTE MARTINEZ-LIZALDE, No. 20-56127

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.

5:19-cv-02480-MCS-JPR v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Dante Martinez-Lizalde appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

*

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).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Lizalde’s challenges to his criminal convictions because these claims were not certified for appeal. See Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction to resolve the merits of any claim for which a COA is not granted.”); see also Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (order) (holding that a successive § 2255 motion disguised as a § 2241 petition requires a COA). To the extent Martinez-Lizalde seeks reconsideration of this court’s denial of a COA as to that claim, it is denied.

To the extent Martinez-Lizalde challenges his final order of removal, the district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (REAL ID Act “eliminated habeas jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (notwithstanding § 2241 or any other habeas provision, “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”).

Martinez-Lizalde fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any argument that the district court erred in its remaining conclusions. See Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d

2 20-56127 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.

3 20-56127