RONGGUO HE V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 14-73549 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONGGUO HE, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73549 Agency No. A088-090-456 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Rongguo He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order adopting an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate 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). § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. As to asylum, He does not contest the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that He failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). In light of these dispositive determinations, we need not reach He’s remaining contentions regarding the agency’s denial of asylum as a matter of discretion. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Because He failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because He failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. 2 14-73549 Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 83536 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-73549
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
