NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
GUSTAVO RIOS-GUILLEN; et al., No. 08-71226
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A072-110-407
A072-110-404
v. A072-110-406
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Rios-Guillen and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, upon a
stipulated remand from this court, denying their request for humanitarian asylum.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum. Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th
Cir. 2000). We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying humanitarian asylum
because Rios-Guillen’s loss of his job, the resulting loss of the family’s home, and
the two beatings Rios-Guillen suffered at the hands of the police do not rise to the
level of atrocious past persecution that would warrant a grant of humanitarian
asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). See Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d
933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding past persecution not sufficient to qualify for
humanitarian asylum where Iraqi applicant detained for over one month and
tortured).
Further, because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
there had been a fundamental change in circumstances such that petitioners no
longer had a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico, it did not abuse its
discretion in determining that they had not demonstrated a reasonable possibility
that they may suffer other serious harm upon removal to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B); Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.1998) (finding
BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding applicant was not eligible for
2 08-71226
humanitarian asylum where its opinion “demonstrate[d] that it heard the claim,
considered the evidence, and decided against [him]”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71226