Case Name: Carlos Enrique BARRIOS-ESCOBAR; Norma Elcira Barrios, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-13
Citations: 257 F. App'x 42
Docket Number: No. 05-73916
Parties: Carlos Enrique BARRIOS-ESCOBAR; Norma Elcira Barrios, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 257
Pages: 42–43

Head Matter:
Carlos Enrique BARRIOS-ESCOBAR; Norma Elcira Barrios, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2007.
Filed Nov. 13, 2007.
Jorge I. Rodriguez-Choi, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Deitz Lefort, Esq., Lisa W. Edwards, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Barrios-Escobar and Norma Barrios petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to affirm the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their application for asylum. We deny the petition for review.
The harms that Petitioners suffered in Guatemala do not meet the requirements for a finding of past persecution. The single beating in 1984 and the threats in 1991, 1993, and 1995 do not qualify as persecution under our holdings. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2006).
Further, the conclusion that Petitioners' fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable' is supported in the record. First, Petitioners have shown no nexus to any of the protected grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Petitioners have expressed no allegiance to any political ideology or even to political neutrality. See Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.2002); Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895 (9th Cir.2002). Second, Petitioners' children live safely with Norma's mother in the very city where Petitioners claim they would be threatened and harmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.