Jorge Salgado Machado v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1242

JORGE LUIS SALGADO MACHADO, Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jorge Luis Salgado Machado, Petitioner Pro Se. Deitz P. Lefort, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Jorge Luis Salgado Machado (Salgado), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, on remand from the Board, denying Salgado’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments raised on appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We first observe that Salgado, who proceeds pro se in this court, does not challenge the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding or her ruling that some of the advanced particular social groups lacked cognizability, both of which were affirmed by the Board. We thus hold that Salgado has forfeited appellate review of these rulings. See Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in the party’s briefs). As to the issues that are preserved for review, we conclude that (a) the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); (b) substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s dispositive rulings, which were adopted and affirmed by the Board, see Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 248 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review); and (c) the agency applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Salgado’s applications for relief, see Lopez-Sorto v. Garland, 103 F.4th 242, 253 (4th Cir. 2024) (providing for de novo review of agency’s application of relevant legal standards).

3

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Salgado Machado (B.I.A.

Mar. 4, 2024). 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