United States v. 2020-11-16 | 16-72880 | RUI GUO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUI GUO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-72880

Agency No. A087-611-532

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Rui Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Guo failed to
establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and
interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Guo did not establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “compelling,
objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus,
Guo’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Guo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Guo 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.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not reach Guo’s contentions that the IJ erred in making an adverse
credibility determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

3
We do not consider the country conditions report or Chinese laws Guo
references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
As stated in the court’s February 10, 2017 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.