Jose Alfonso Escobedo Soto; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ALFONSO ESCOBEDO SOTO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72198
Agency Nos. A096-338-733
A096-338-734
A096-338-735
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.
Jose Alfonso Escobedo Soto, his wife Jovita Escobedo, and their daughter
Anel Yesenia Escobedo Moreno, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their fifth
FILED
SEP 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72198 2
motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of
removal, and seeking to renew their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on changed
country conditions in Mexico.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
Petitioners’ renewed claim for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under CAT, based on changed country conditions, failed to present
evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners
and their circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce previously
unavailable evidence of changed country conditions that are material to petitioners
and their circumstances). In addition, we reject petitioners’ claim - that they are
entitled to asylum and withholding of relief because they are Mexican aliens who
would be targeted upon returning to Mexico from the United States - because
petitioners have not alleged a cognizable social group and, thus, have not stated a
claim for asylum or withholding of relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72198 3
1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as particular social group “returning
Mexicans from the United States”). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --