Case Name: Marino Agullana JUAN, Jr.; Fely Tabago Juan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-26
Citations: 304 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 04-71949
Parties: Marino Agullana JUAN, Jr.; Fely Tabago Juan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 637–637

Head Matter:
Marino Agullana JUAN, Jr.; Fely Tabago Juan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71949.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
Claro L. Mamaril, Esq., Mamaril & Mamaril, Vallejo, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Janice K. Redfern, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marino Agullana Juan, Jr., and his wife, both natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Popova v. INS, 273 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in the Philippines such that Juan no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.