NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE A. GONZALEZ MORAN,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 72838 Agency No. A215

- 906

- 360

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 6, 2021 * * Pasadena, California Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Gonzalez Moran , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order upholding the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny Gonzalez’s petition for review in

* This disposition is not ap propriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 9 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 4

pa rt and grant it in part

. 1. Substantial evidence supports t he BIA ’s finding that Gonzalez failed to
establish a nexus between any past or future harm and a protected ground for his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Before the immigration judge (IJ), Gonzalez sought
relief based on an unspecified particular social group and explained that he feared
harm because he was “caught in the territorial crossfire” between two rival drug
cartels. Gonzalez credibly testified that he was targeted by two different cartels:
The first cartel sou ght information about the whereabouts of his uncle, who was a member of a different cartel; the second cartel , whose members previously worked
with his uncle , believed that Gonzalez had shared information with the first cartel.
T he BIA properly concluded that, rather than facing persecution on the basis of a particular social group, Gonzalez was “caught up in the crossfire of cartels fighting for territory” and thus merely a victim of general crime and violence unconnected to a protected ground. See Zetin o v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 101 6 (9th Cir. 2010). Before the BIA, Gonzalez sought to raise the proposed particular social groups of “his uncle’s family” and “Mexicans perceived to have opposed and taken concrete steps against the cartels.” The BIA decli ned to address the se groups
because it held that Gonzalez failed to raise them before the IJ. See Honcharov v.
Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1296

– 97 (9th Cir. 2019). B ecause the lack of a nexus isPage 3 of 4

dispositive , we need not decide whether the IJ should have conside red any particular social groups not specifically raised by Gonzalez

. The BIA properly denied his applications for both asylum and withholding of removal

. 2
. The BIA erred in its finding that Gonzalez failed to establish government or public official acquiescence to warrant protection under CAT

. Gonzalez submitted a declaration stating that “armed men with soldiers’ uniforms on” participated in the second cartel attack, during which cart el members beat and
threatened to kill him. Gonzalez was otherwise found credible, so this evidence could support a finding of government acquiescence , even if the Mexican soldiers were merely passive bystanders

. See Madrigal v. Holder , 716 F.3d 499, 5 09

– 510 (9th Cir. 2013). But in denying his CAT claim, the BIA relied on Gonzalez’s testimony during the merits hearing, in which he responded “no” to the IJ’s queries about whether he had ever been arrested by the police or experienced problems
with the Mex ican authorities. Both the IJ and the BIA construed this testimony as proof that Gonzalez could not show government acquiescence in any torture the cartels might inflict. The BIA’s explanation takes Gon za lez’s merits testimony out
of context to refute hi s declaration. Gonzalez’s testimony was only in reference to his own personal criminal history and does not necessarily disprove his
declaration’s assertion that Mexican soldiers acquiesced in the second cartel attack.Page 4 of 4

As a result, t he BIA improperly denied Gonzalez’s application for protection under
CAT on the rationale provided.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ;
CASE REMANDED
.