Antonio Quinteiro Salgado v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-1735
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1735 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1735

ANTONIO CARLOS QUINTEIRO SALGADO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Carlos Quinteiro Salgado, Petitioner Pro Se. Anthony Cardozo Payne, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alexander Jacob Lutz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1735 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Carlos Quinteiro Salgado, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals sustaining the Department of

Homeland Security’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision granting Salgado

withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) but denying all other

forms of relief. Upon review of the administrative record, in conjunction with the parties’

arguments and the relevant authorities, we discern no error in the Board’s ruling that the

immigration judge clearly erred in his factual determination on the issue of Salgado’s

potential to internally relocate to avoid future torture. See Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d

523, 530 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[A] decision regarding a petitioner’s likely future mistreatment

is a factual determination, subject to [Board] review under the clearly erroneous

standard.”). Specifically, the noncitizen seeking CAT protection must show that internal

relocation would not be possible, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii), and substantial evidence

supports the Board’s ruling that Salgado failed to make the requisite showing, see Ponce-

Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480, 484 (4th Cir. 2023) (“The agency’s factual findings—

including its predictions about the likelihood of future mistreatment and government

acquiescence—‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary.’” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Salgado (B.I.A. June 12,

2023).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1735 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED