
    Rafaela Antonio PABLO; Isaac Esteban Andres Antonio; Kezy Esteban Andres Antonio, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72264.
    INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Rose Kasusky, Casa Cornelia Law Center, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rafaela Antonio Pablo, Isaac Esteban Andres Antonio, Kezy Esteban Andres Antonio, pro se, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Executive Office of Immigration, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Washington, DC, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s request for asylum because substantial evidence, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), supports its finding that changed conditions rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(l)(i)(A). A fortiori, the BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s request for withholding of removal. See Del Valle v. INS, 776 F.2d 1407, 1410-11 (9th Cir.1985). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for asylum on humanitarian grounds because petitioner has not demonstrated that she suffered persecution severe enough to warrant such relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(l)(iii).

Petitioner is not entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture because, as petitioner concedes, the regulations pertaining to withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture were not in effect when she submitted her asylum application and she did not move to reopen the proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Petitioner's two minor children were also included in her asylum claim and were subject to removal proceedings. The children's claim is derivative of her claim, and they are entitled to the same status she receives. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3).
     