Rongguo He v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONGGUO HE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73549
Agency No. A088-090-456
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73549
§ 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 of 3 --

3 14-73549
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-
36 (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 of 3 --