
    Manuel Giovanny Mejia ANGULO; Maritza Pardo Segovia; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74240.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2008.
    
    Filed July 31, 2008.
    
      Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Giovanny Mejia Angulo, his wife and two children, all natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), we grant the petition for review.

Mejia Angulo presented evidence in his motion indicating that the FARC guerillas have escalated their threats against him, having increased their efforts to discover his location and date of return to Colombia. This evidence is sufficient to establish changed circumstances in Colombia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). In addition, Mejia Angulo has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (stating standard). Therefore, the BIA abused its discretion in denying Mejia An-gulo’s motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions. See Malty, 381 F.3d at 945-46.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     