Case Name: Nabil K. NASARULLAH; Rehnuma Nabeel; Sanan K. Zair; Samin Zara; K. Zayn, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-17
Citations: 121 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 03-71729; Agency Nos. A72-543-489, A72-543-490, A72-543-191, A72-543-492, A72-543-493
Parties: Nabil K. NASARULLAH; Rehnuma Nabeel; Sanan K. Zair; Samin Zara; K. Zayn, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 283–283

Head Matter:
Nabil K. NASARULLAH; Rehnuma Nabeel; Sanan K. Zair; Samin Zara; K. Zayn, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71729. Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXXXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXXXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2005.
Decided Feb. 17, 2005.
Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Christopher C. Fuller, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior District Judge.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Tlie Honorable Leonard B. Sand, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In support of its conclusion that Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proving that they had suffered past persecution or would be persecuted if returned to Bangladesh, the BIA refers to evidence that the Bangladesh government has little contact with the Bihari refugee population living in refugee camps. However, we have held that government inaction in the face of persecution by private groups that the government is unwilling or unable to control may support a claim for asylum. See Singh v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1353, 1359 (9th Cir.1996). We remand to the BIA for reconsideration of Petitioners' asylum claims based on private persecution.
PETITION GRANTED AND CASE REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.