Juan Manuel Colindres- Comelli v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MANUEL COLINDRES-
COMELLI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73571
Agency No. A072-295-405
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Colindres-Comelli, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73571 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey,
518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal on
the ground that Colindres-Comelli did not establish it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if returned to Guatemala by or at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in official
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.17(a); see also Arteaga v. Mukasey,
511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
We decline to consider Colindres-Comelli’s contentions concerning the
BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider because the court previously rejected
them in Colindres-Comelli v. Holder, No. 09-72963 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010). See
Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (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 jurisdiction to review Colindres-Comelli’s contention that
he qualifies for humanitarian asylum because he failed to exhaust this claim before
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --