
    Paula PUENTES-SOLIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    Paula Puentes-Solis, Everson, WA, pro se.
    Edgar Arnoldo Mendoza-Puentes, Ever-son, WA, pro se.
    Petrona Maria Mendoza-Puentes, Ever-son, WA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paula Puentes-Solis and her two children, natives and citizens of Guatelmala, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Puentes-Solis could only speculate as to the reasons for her husband’s disappearance, the anonymous threats, the attacks by local women, and a rape and injury by masked men. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Puentes-Solis failed to establish that these incidents occurred on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2002) (evidence did not compel a finding of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion where petitioner offered no evidence that his family member held particular political beliefs or that attackers made any statements suggesting they attacked because of the family member’s political beliefs). Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails. See Ochave, 254 F.3d at 868.

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