T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR L ON AL C I DE S P AL MAP L AT E R O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70652 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 323- 612 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r l on A l c i de s P a l m a - P l a t e r o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is mo t i o n t o r e o p e n r e mo v a lp r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n. 

# FI LED OC T 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70652 2 See H e v . G on zales , 501 F . 3d 1128, 1130- 31 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P a lm a - P la te r o ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e th e B I A c o n s id e r e dth e e v id e n c e s ub m itte da n da c te dw ith in its b r o a dd is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g P a lm a - P la te r o d idn o t s h o w p r im af a c ie e lig ib ility f o rth e r e lie f

s o u g h t. Se e I

N S v . A budu , 48 5 U . S . 94 , 10 4-05 (198 8) (the B IA m ay de nyam ot i on t o r e ope n f orf a i l ur e t o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e f

orthe u n d e r ly in g r e lie f

s o u g h t) . W e de c l i ne t o c ons i de rP a l m a - P l a t e r o’ s c ha l l e nge t o the B I A ’ s Jul y21, 2005 or de rbe c aus e i tha s a l r e a dybe e n c ons i de r e d a nd r e j e c t e d bythi s c ourti n P alm aP later o v. G on zales , N o . 0 5 - 7 4 9 0 2 ( 9 th C ir . A u g . 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 ) . See Merri t t v. M acke y , 932 F . 2d 1317, 1320 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( e xpl a i ni ng unde rthe ‘ l aw of the ca se do ctri ne’ on e panelof an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre consi der quest i on s w hi ch a n o th e rp a n e l h a s d e c id e do n ap r io rap p e a l in th e s a m e c a s e ) . F i nal l y, w e l ac k autho ri ty t o con si der P al m a- P l at er o’ s c l ai m thatthe court s houl d r e c ons i de ri t s hol di ng i n Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 54 2 F . 3d 73 8 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) . Se e Mu rra

yv . Ca b le Na t. Br o a dc a s t i n gCo . , 86 F . 3d 85 8, 86 0 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( “[ O ]n lyap a n e l s ittin g e n b an c m ayo v e rtu rn e x is tin g N in th C ir c u it p r e c e d e n t.” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n dc ita tio n o m itte d ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.