With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir.2000), and we grant the petition for review and remand. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s conclusion that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to control the Muslim terrorists who persecuted Kundra on account of his imputed political opinion. The record indicates that the Indian government, although willing, was unable to control the terrorists, despite the fact that Kundra reported the incidents to the police, followed the advice of the police, and relocated within India twice while attempting to escape persecution. See id. at 1198 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, substantial evidence does not

A: holding that such a report provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution
B: recognizing that the governments inability to control the source of persecution may support a finding of a wellfounded fear
C: holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution
D: holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution
B.