FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS BERNAL ESTEVEZ and No. 09-72653
SILVA NEOFITA VALERIO, AKA
Neofita Valerio, Agency Nos. A079-532-383
A079-532-384
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
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.
Juan Carlos Bernal Estevez and Neofita Valerio Silva, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
*
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).
Appeals, denying their second motion to reopen, challenging the denial of their
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 they are entitled to cancellation relief because their
United States citizen children will experience hardship if they return to Mexico and
because Neofita Valerio Silva has been diagnosed with major recurrent depression
with psychotic symptoms. 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 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
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.