Antonio Moreno-Lozoya 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTONIO MORENO-LOZOYA; JORGE
MORENO-BARBA; SILVIA BARBA-
MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Silvia Barba-Moreno,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73524
Agency Nos. A088-360-100
A088-360-101
A088-360-102
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 9, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Moreno-Lozoya, Silvia Barba-Martinez, and Jorge Moreno-Barba
(“Petitioners”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
FILED
FEB 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history1
underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.
10-73524 2
decision denying their motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.1
We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). Questions of law are
reviewed de novo. Id.
Petitioners contend that the BIA erred by denying the motion to reopen
because they submitted evidence material to their asylum claim and presented
prima facie claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). According to Petitioners, the evidence they
submitted with their motion to reopen is material to their asylum claim because it
shows that residents of Casas Grandes are specifically targeted by drug cartels and
that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. However, to be eligible for
asylum, Petitioners would have to prove a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of a protected ground, and Petitioners did not present any evidence to
support a claim that they would be targeted for persecution on account of their
residency in the town of Casas Grandes. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) and
1101(a)(42)(A); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding

-- 2 of 4 --

10-73524 3
that an “alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft
or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”);
Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, they did not
present “material” new evidence regarding their asylum claim. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that evidence presented with
motion to reopen was not material because it merely recounted generalized
conditions that failed to demonstrate that petitioner’s situation was appreciably
different from the dangers faced by her fellow citizens). Accordingly, the BIA
properly addressed the materiality of the submitted evidence and did not abuse its
discretion in deciding not to reopen proceedings for the asylum claim. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.
Petitioners point us to no evidence in the record tending to prove prima facie
eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242
F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that, to qualify for withholding of
removal, the applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on
account of one of the specified grounds); see also Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d
1013, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that, to qualify for reopening for CAT
protection, the applicant must establish a prima facie case that it is more likely than
not that he will suffer the intentional infliction of pain or suffering by or at the

-- 3 of 4 --

10-73524 4
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person acting in an official
capacity). In any event, we must refrain from ruling on Petitioners’ contentions
regarding withholding of removal and CAT protection, because these issues were
not addressed by the BIA. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (holding that this
court’s review is limited to grounds actually relied upon by the BIA). Petitioners do
not contend that the BIA erred by failing to address these issues, and such a
contention is therefore waived. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-
60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --