Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to demonstrate a nexus because his fear of “ordinary crime” or “private violence” by “unknown persons” did not amount to evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. We cannot say that the record compels a different conclusion. Garcia’s. evidence established at most that crime, including kidnapping for ransom, is widespread in Mexico and that people within both the expatriate and local communities, and at all socioeconomic levels, may be targeted by gangs and drug-trafficking organizations for kidnapping. As a matter of law, such evidence of high levels of general criminal activity within a country alone is insufficient to “constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.” See Ruiz v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir.2006) ; Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at 1310-11 (explaining
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution
B. holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence
C. holding that persecution based on being a current member of the military national police force or us embassy guard does not qualify as persecution on a protected ground
D. holding that while widespread violence against a protected group by private individuals and public officials may constitute persecution widespread discrimination that may include persecution of some individuals does not compel such a finding
E. holding that evidence that  is consistent with acts of private violence  or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.