FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLON ALCIDES PALMA- No. 08-70652
PLATERO,
Agency No. A078-323-612
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Marlon Alcides Palma-Platero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
*
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).
See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Palma-Platero’s motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining Palma-Platero did not show prima facie eligibility
for the relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may
deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the
underlying relief sought).
We decline to consider Palma-Platero’s challenge to the BIA’s July 21, 2005
order because it has already been considered and rejected by this court in Palma-
Platero v. Gonzales, No. 05-74902 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2007). See Merritt v.
Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining under the ‘law of the
case doctrine’ one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which
another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
Finally, we lack authority to consider Palma-Platero’s claim that the court
should reconsider its holding in Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.
2008). See Murray v. Cable Nat. Broadcasting Co., 86 F.3d 858, 860 (9th Cir.
1996) (“[O]nly a panel sitting en banc may overturn existing Ninth Circuit
precedent.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70652