Court Opinion

ID: 9956804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:01:06.521356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:52.460339
License: Public Domain

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                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                                                  3