Case Name: Juan Carlos ARREOLA and Ana Myriam Arreola, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 421 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 09-73940
Parties: Juan Carlos ARREOLA and Ana Myriam Arreola, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
Juan Carlos ARREOLA and Ana Myriam Arreola, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73940.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 9, 2010.
Filed March 15, 2011.
Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial, Oil, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Carlos Arreola and his wife Ana Maria Myrian Arreola, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their third motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum and related relief. The BIA found that petitioners' motion was untimely, and numerically barred, but noted that the limits did not apply to asylum applications based on changed country conditions.
Petitioners' sole contention on appeal is that the BIA erred in denying their third motion to reopen because petitioners presented evidence of a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their membership in a social group comprised of "family members of a Mexican police officer who had been attacked and whose identity was known to his narco-criminal attackers." Petitioners failed to establish that they qualify as a cognizable social group, and therefore did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the asylum, and related relief requested by petitioners. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.