MODESTO RAMIREZ and GABINA MENDOZA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MODESTO RAMIREZ and GABINA
MENDOZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72843
Agency Nos. A099-418-119
A096-304-950
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Modesto Ramirez and Gabina Mendoza, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72843 2
denying their motion to reopen, seeking to apply for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Petitioners contend that country conditions have changed in Mexico, and
that they will be persecuted because they will be perceived as wealthy and potential
kidnapping victims because they are Mexicans returning from the United States,
thereby entitling them to asylum relief. Petitioners failed to establish 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). In addition, petitioners failed to establish that they qualify
as a cognizable social group, and therefore did not demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for asylum,. 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --