Antonio Carlos Quinteiro Salgado v. Merrick B. Garland

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --