
    Gabriel Garcia YANAGUI, aka Garcia Gabriel, aka Gabriel Garcia, aka Gabriel Garcia Yanaqui, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73674.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
    Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Claire Workman, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gabriel Garcia Yanagui, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen, in which he challenged the denial of his application for relief from removal.

Petitioner contends that country conditions have changed in Mexico thereby excusing the time and numerical bars to reopening his asylum, withholding, and Convention Against Torture claims. Yana-gui also contends that he would be persecuted because he would be perceived as wealthy and a potential kidnapping victim because he is a Mexicans returning from the United States, thereby entitling him to asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. Petitioner failed to establish changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner and his 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, petitioner failed to establish that he qualified as a member of 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”). Petitioner also failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico, and thereby he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for GAT protection. See id. at 1152.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     