Case Name: Kajneesh JARET, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-27
Citations: 540 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 12-70447
Parties: Kajneesh JARET, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 687–687

Head Matter:
Kajneesh JARET, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70447.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Melissa Katherine Lott, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kajneesh Jaret, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an 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, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of removal because Jaret failed to demonstrate that the Indian government is unwilling or unable to control the Muslim extremists he fears. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (although police were unable to solve crimes against petitioner evidence did not compel finding that crimes were committed by forces the government was unable or unwilling to control because police took reports and investigated petitioner's complaints); Rahimzadeh, 613 F.3d at 923 (country report did not support conclusion that government was unwilling or unable to control petitioner's attackers).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.