Jose de Paz Mejia v. Todd Blanche

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2254 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/11/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2254

JOSE DANIEL DE PAZ MEJIA, Petitioner, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 18, 2026 Decided: June 11, 2026

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Daniel de Paz Mejia, Petitioner Pro Se. Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Keith Ian McManus, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2254 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/11/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jose Daniel de Paz Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying the relief of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordering his removal from the United States.

To be granted the relief of deferral of removal, Petitioner must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2025). Because this Court reviews the denial of relief under the CAT for substantial evidence, “[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Bar, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Relevant legal determinations are subject to de novo review. Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012). Upon review, we find that the record evidence does not compel reversal of the agency’s denial of relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re de Paz Mejia (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 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