Felipe De Jesus De La Cruz Galvan v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FELIPE DE JESUS DE LA CRUZ
GALVAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71222
Agency No. A097-866-462
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Felipe de Jesus de la Cruz Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the decision of the Board of Appeals denying his motion to reopen
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71222 2
the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal, based on his
application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT).
Petitioner’s claim for protection under CAT failed to present evidence of
changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner and his
circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207,
1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that CAT applicant must establish that it is more
likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country).
Petitioner therefore failed to establish prima facie eligibility for protection under
CAT.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention that he is entitled to
asylum and withholding of removal because he failed to raise this contention
before the BIA and he thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, petitioner’s claim - that he was entitled to asylum and withholding relief
based on being a Mexican alien who would be targeted upon returning home from
the United States - lacks merit because this does not qualify as a cognizable social
group, and thus, could not support a grant of asylum or withholding of relief. See

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71222 3
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --