USCA4 Appeal: 22-1049 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 19 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1049 JOSE IVAN TREJO TEPAS, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued: March 9, 2023 Decided: July 10, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition for review denied by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Quattlebaum and Judge Rushing joined. ARGUED: Ronald Darwin Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Andrew Nathan O’Malley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C, for Respondent. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1049 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 19 NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: After Jose I. Trejo Tepas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application and ordered that Trejo Tepas be removed to El Salvador. The IJ explained that while Trejo Tepas had left El Salvador because of a genuine fear of gangs, neither he nor his family had had any encounters with gang members. Because the basis for his fear was simply a “generalized” fear of criminal gang members and violence in El Salvador, the IJ found that he was ineligible for relief. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Trejo Tepas argued that he had proceeded pro se before the IJ and that the IJ had failed to develop the record, as required by Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612, 622 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that immigration judges have a “duty to develop the record in immigration court proceedings”). He argued that he was not advised of the governing procedures and that the IJ did not sufficiently probe his factual circumstances. He requested that his case be remanded to the IJ. The BIA concluded, however, that the IJ had indeed fulfilled the requirements of Quintero and affirmed. In the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that the BIA did not err and affirm its decision. I In April 2016, Trejo Tepas sought admission into the United States at the Paso del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. He was 16 years old, unaccompanied by a parent or 2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1049 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/10/2023 Pg: 3 of 19 guardian, and lacked a valid entry document. After he was served with a Notice to Appear charging him with being subject to removal, he was taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. After two weeks, however, he was released into the care of his father, who was then living in Maryland. Trejo Tepas and his father thereafter appeared at three hearings — in July …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals