With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". INS 184 F.3d 1029, 1036 (1999)) (emphasis in original). This Court has recognized that unwillingness or inability to control persecutors is not demonstrated simply because the police ultimately were unable to solve a crime or arrest the perpetrators, where the asylum applicant failed to provide the police with sufficiently specific information to permit an investigation or an arrest. See, e.g., Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.2010) (declining to conclude that the Italian government was “complicit in or unwilling to stop” the applicants’ persecution, where the police dutifully made reports after each incident and indicated that they would investigate, but where the attackers’ identities were completely speculative); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, in Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d

A: holding that the applicant had not demonstrated the government was unable or unwilling to control the perpetrators where he contended that the police failed to investigate his reports but admitted that he did not give the police the names of any suspects because he did not know any specific names and his wife testified that the police investigated the complaints but were ultimately unable to solve the crimes
B: holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them
C: holding that a defendant may plead guilty even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime
D: holding alien failed to show the government was unable or unwilling to control the attackers where police came to aliens location when they were called and no further action was taken which could have been due to a lack of suspects
A.