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
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 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 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 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 holding that phrase i know i have the right to remain silent together with phrase and knowing that anything i say may be used against me substantially complied with article 3822 warnings even though warnings failed to advise accused that his statement could be used against him at his trial or in court because it advised him his statement could be used against him in any type of context not just those mentioned in article 3822 subsection 2a1 and 2