Modesto Ramirez, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-72843 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MODESTO RAMIREZ and GABINA MENDOZA, No. 09-72843 Agency Nos. A099-418-119 A096-304-950 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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 * 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). 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 09-72843

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.