Beysi Rossibel Mejia-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15146 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No.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 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals