
    Mainor Amilcar MARROQUIN; Ofelia Marroquin-Pineda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70850.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 25, 2012.
    Stephen Shaiken, Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mainor Amilear Marroquin and Ofelia Marroquin-Pineda, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of deportation and removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008), and deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the death threats Marroquin experienced, even considered cumulatively, amounted to persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, do not generally constitute persecution). Therefore, petitioners’ humanitarian asylum claim fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(iii). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Marroquin established past persecution, the record reflects country conditions in Guatemala have changed such that petitioners no longer have a well-founded fear of future persecution by the Guatemalan army or guerrillas. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286-87. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of deportation and removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief based on changed country conditions. See id. at 1288-89.

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