Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-15146
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A206-494-842
BEYSI ROSSIBEL MEJIA-GARCIA,
HECTOR JOSE SAUCEDA-MEJIA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(September 13, 2019)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Beysi Rossibel Mejia-Garcia, a native and citizen of Honduras, and her son,
as her derivative beneficiary, petition for review of the final order that affirmed the
Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 2 of 4
denial of her application for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a). Mejia-Garcia also applied for withholding of removal and for
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, see id. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3),
but she has abandoned any challenge that she could have made to the denial of
those forms of immigration relief. See Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530
(11th Cir. 2013). Mejia-Garcia argues that the Board of Appeals erred in ruling that
defects in her initial notice to appear did not deprive the immigration judge of
jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. See Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105
(2018). Mejia-Garcia also challenges the finding of the immigration judge that she
was not credible and the alternative finding that she lacked a well-founded fear of
future persecution. While Mejia-Garcia’s petition was pending, we held in Perez-
Sanchez v. United States Attorney General, No. 18-12578, 2019 WL 3940873, at
*1 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019), that defects in a notice to appear do not affect the
jurisdiction of the immigration judge and the Board to conduct removal
proceedings. Because the immigration judge had the authority to adjudicate Mejia-
Garcia’s application and because substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility ruling, we deny the petition for review.
Our decision in Perez-Sanchez forecloses Mejia-Garcia’s argument that the
immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. In Perez-
2
Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 3 of 4
Sanchez, we held that the requirement for a notice to appear to specify the time and
place of a removal hearing, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14, is a claim-
processing rule that, even when violated, does not prevent an immigration judge
and the Board of Immigration Appeals from “properly exercis[ing] jurisdiction
over [the alien’s] removal hearing based on the authority conferred upon them by 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1)” and entering a “valid final order of removal.” 2019 WL
3940873 at *3–7. In any event, after Mejia-Garcia received a notice to appear
containing the date and time of her removal hearing, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), she
succeeded in having her removal proceedings reopened and the in absentia order
rescinded. Mejia-Garcia then filed her application for immigration relief. So no
defect existed in the notice to appear that resulted in the final order of removal that
Mejia-Garcia challenges in her petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Mejia-Garcia was not
credible, and the Board of Immigration Appeals identified specific and cogent
reasons to support that finding. See Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326,
1332 (11th Cir. 2011). Mejia-Garcia based her application on the murder of her
son’s father, Sauceda Tejada, by men who misidentified him as a relative of three
brothers with the surname Rivera, but there were inconsistencies in Mejia-Garcia’s
testimony and her corroborating evidence regarding Tejada’s death. Mejia-Garcia
testified that corrupt Honduran police officers killed Tejada and the three brothers
3
Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 4 of 4
in the mistaken belief that they were members of the Rivera gang, but later Mejia-
Garcia testified that the Rivera gang killed Tejada and the three brothers because
they had the same surname as the gang. Although Mejia-Garcia submitted a sworn
statement from an aunt who allegedly warned her to flee Honduras, the aunt’s
statement that Tejada was “murdered along with his three brothers” was
inconsistent with Mejia-Garcia’s testimony that Tejada was not related to the three
other men who were killed. Because substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding, we need not address Mejia-Garcia’s other argument about her
eligibility for asylum.
We DENY Mejia-Garcia’s petition for review.
4