Javier Aguilar-Medina 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAVIER AGUILAR-MEDINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70130
Agency No. A088-502-048
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Javier Aguilar-Medina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen,
seeking to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
FILED
DEC 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70130 2
Petitioner contends that country conditions have changed in Mexico, and
that he will be persecuted because he will be perceived as wealthy and a potential
kidnapping victim because he is a Mexican returning from the United States and he
has relatives remaining in the United States, thereby entitling him to asylum and
withholding relief. Petitioner failed to establish changed country conditions in
Mexico that are material to petitioner and his circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008). In
addition, petitioner failed to establish that he qualified as a member of a cognizable
social group, and therefore petitioner did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for
asylum and withholding relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-
52 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as a particular social group “returning Mexicans from
the United States”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening to allow petitioner
to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture because the generalized
evidence attached to the motion did establish that it is more likely than not that
petitioner will be tortured at the acquiescence of the government if he returns to
Mexico. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); Ordonez v.
INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring movant to establish prima facie

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70130 3
case for eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --