SERGIO LOPEZ SORIA and MARIA ERENDIRA CRUZ AVILA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SERGIO LOPEZ SORIA and MARIA
ERENDIRA CRUZ AVILA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71230
Agency Nos. A097-351-504
A097-351-505
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Lopez Soria and his wife, Maria Erendira Cruz Avila, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their
FILED
JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71230 2
application for cancellation of removal based on changed country conditions, and
their renewed claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
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); Nuru v. Gonzales, 404
F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, 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 - is not
persuasive 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 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the BIA
did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --