With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because the perpetrators were not governmental actors and there is no evidence that the Guatemalan government encouraged their behavior or was unwilling to protect Lopez. We have reasoned that an asylum applicant “cannot even claim asylum on the basis of persecution by a private group unless the government either condones it or is helpless to prevent it.” Hor, 421 F.3d at 501; see also Margos v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 593, 599 (7th Cir.2006) (explaining that a government abets private discrimination only if it “is unwilling and completely unable to afford protection.”). Lopez admitted that he never reported, or attempted to report, any of the gang attacks to the police. We require more than Lopez’s conjecture that the police would be indifferent to his plight. Cf. Hor, 421 F.3d at 502 (<HOLDING>); Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554, 557

A: holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada
B: holding that actions of radical islamists could be attributed to government where military told petitioner it could not protect him from terrorists and algerian court advised him to keep a low profile
C: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea
D: holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave
B.