[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 4 
2

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 PerezSanchez 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 MejiaGarcia’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 PerezCase: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

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 claimprocessing 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

Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

in the mistaken belief that they were members of the Rivera gang, but later MejiaGarcia 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.

Case: 18-15146 Date Filed: 09/13/2019 Page: 4 of 4