
    Hrair NAZARI; Jouliet Akbary Masihy; Selina Nazari; Sevada Nazari, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72035
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    Filed June 6, 2016
    
      Seroj Meserkhani, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Meserkhani & Bagramian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, .Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hrair Nazari, Jouliet Akbary Masihy, Selina Nazari, and Sevada Nazari, natives of Iran and citizens of Germany, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.- See Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2012). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the government of Germany was or would be unwilling or unable to control the individuals petitioners fear. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2008) (declining to second-guess an IJ’s construction of a somewhat contradictory country report where the IJ rationally construed the report and analyzed petitioner’s specific situation); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel a finding that the government was unable or unwilling to control perpetrators where petitioner did not give the police the names of any suspects and the police investigated but were unable to solve the crime).

Thus, we uphold the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ asylum claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     