
    Carlos NAVARRETE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2015.
    Carlos Navarrete, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Joseph Anthony O’Connell, OIL, 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: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, 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 'Navarrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the' Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Navarrete met his burden of proof to establish the government of Mexico would be unwilling or unable to control the individuals he fears. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920-23 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief that police would do nothing did not establish that government was unable or unwilling to control persecutors); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (record does not compel a contrary conclusion where “reasonable minds could differ”). Thus, Na-varrete’s claim for withholding of removal fails. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Navarrete’s contentions regarding a disfavored group analysis.

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).

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