ROBERTO CORTES-ALDANA and MARIA DE LA LUZ CORTES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERTO CORTES-ALDANA and
MARIA DE LA LUZ CORTES,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70117
Agency Nos. A095-193-323
A095-193-324
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.
Roberto Cortes Aldana and Maria de la Luz Cortes, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying their third motion to reopen, challenging the denial of their
FILED
SEP 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-70117 2
underlying cancellation of removal application and seeking to apply for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Petitioners contend that their United States citizen children will experience
hardship if they return to Mexico and therefore they are entitled to cancellation
relief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion to
reopen as time- and number-barred, and petitioners may not reopen their
cancellation of removal claim. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C)(1); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(2) & (c)(2),
Petitioners also contend that country conditions have changed in Mexico
thereby excusing the time and numerical bars to reopening their asylum,
withholding, and CAT claims. Petitioners further contend 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, withholding, and CAT 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 the asylum, and withholding relief requested. See Delgado-

-- 2 of 3 --

09-70117 3
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as a particular
social group “returning Mexicans from the United States”). Petitioners also failed
to establish that it was more likely than not that they would be tortured if returned
to Mexico, and thereby they failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT
protection. See id. at 1152.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --