NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, No. 23-2324

Agency No.

Petitioner, A077-289-010 v.

MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Martinez Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

*

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). Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, other than for the limited purpose of reviewing for legal or constitutional error. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020). We find no legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s decision.

Martinez Ramirez’s equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) is foreclosed by Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (court rejected equal protection challenge to NACARA’s favorable treatment of applicants from certain countries).

To the extent Martinez Ramirez contends that the BIA failed to adequately articulate its reasons for the denial, the contention is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 23-2324