United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 19-60462 

Summary Calendar 

David Alberto Zavaleta Mejia, 

Petitioner, 

versus

William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A216 074 509 

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

David Alberto Zavaleta Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

that dismissed his appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of 

removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 3, 2020 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 19-60462 Document: 00515625319 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2020
No. 19-60462 

2 

and denied his motion to remand the proceeding to consider his eligibility for 

cancellation of removal. On appeal, he presents claims that pertain only to 

the denial of his motion for remand. Therefore, he has abandoned any 

challenge to the BIA’s determinations as to his requests for withholding of 

removal and protection under CAT. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 

833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

We review the denial of a motion for remand under the same highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that applies to a motion to reopen. 

See Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). The BIA’s decision 

will be upheld as long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without 

foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary. Zhao 

v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Zavaleta Mejia 

argues that service of his notice to appear did not end his continuous physical 

presence in the United States because that notice did not specify the date and 

time of his initial removal hearing. He contends that Pereira did not establish 

that a later-issued notice of hearing may perfect the notice to appear and end 

a noncitizen’s period of continuous presence. Zavaleta Mejia argues that the 

BIA, which relied on its decision in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. 

Dec. 520 (BIA 2019), wrongly decided that his motion for remand should be 

denied because he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(1). 

After Pereira, we have held, consistent with Mendoza-Hernandez, that 

a notice to appear is perfected, and an alien’s continuous physical presence 

ends, when he receives all required information, even if the information is set 

forth in more than one document. Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239, 241, 245 

(5th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 6, 2020) (No. 19-1208); 

see also Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 690 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 

Case: 19-60462 Document: 00515625319 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2020
No. 19-60462 

3 

S. Ct. 2718 (2020). Zavaleta Mejia therefore was not eligible for cancellation 

of removal. His notice to appear was perfected, and his period of continuous 

physical presence ended, when the immigration court mailed a hearing notice 

to him that contained the required information. See Yanez-Pena, 952 F.3d at 

241, 245-46. The service of the notice of hearing was done within 10 years of 

his entry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 

Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion 

to remand. See Yanez-Pena, 952 F.3d at 245-46; Milat, 755 F.3d at 365. The 

petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 19-60462 Document: 00515625319 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2020