
    Modesto RAMIREZ and Gabina Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2010.
    Modesto Ramirez, King City, CA, pro se.
    Gabina Mendoza, King City, CA pro se.
    OIL, David H. Wetmore, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Modesto Ramirez and Gabina Mendoza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     