
    Carlos Yobany GUERRA-MEDINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72723.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 6, 2012.
    Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Julie M. Iversen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Yobany Guerra-Medina, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Guerra-Medina established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Accordingly, his asylum claim, including his claim for humanitarian asylum based on abuse by his now-deceased father, fails.

Guerra-Medina fears future persecution by gangs if he returns to Honduras. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Guerra-Medina failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution, especially given the lack of problems for Guerra-Medina’s seven brothers who continue to live in Honduras unharmed. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident ... ”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

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.
     