Hrair Nazari; Jouliet Akbary Masihy; Selina Nazari; Sevada Nazari v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HRAIR NAZARI; JOULIET AKBARY
MASIHY; SELINA NAZARI; SEVADA
NAZARI,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72035
Agency Nos. A088-290-114
A088-290-115
A088-290-116
A088-290-492
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 6 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --