Gabriel Plateros Arriaga; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABRIEL PLATEROS ARRIAGA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72097
Agency Nos. A075-752-610
A075-752-611
A078-112-236
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Plateros Arriaga, his wife Imelda Flores De Plateros, and their son
Gabriel Plateros Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their second motion
to reopen, challenging the denial of their underlying cancellation of removal
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

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' second 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 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-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as a particular social

-- 2 of 3 --

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 --