Jorge Luis Salgado Machado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

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).

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --