[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10711

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A208-887-010

JOSE ISIDRO RIVAS PALENCIA, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 23, 2020)

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 1 of 17 
2

Jose Isidro Rivas Palencia petitions for review of a Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision. In its decision, the BIA denied Rivas Palencia’s 

request to terminate his removal proceedings and also affirmed the immigration 

judge’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal under 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and relief under the United Nations 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After careful consideration, we deny his 

petition. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Rivas Palencia, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without 

inspection on January 30, 2016. This appeal involves his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.

A. After Entering the United States, Rivas is Served with a Notice to 

Appear.

Shortly after Rivas Palencia arrived in the United States, the Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS”) served him with a notice to appear (“NTA”), which 

charged him with being removable on the basis that he was an immigrant not in 

possession of a valid, unexpired immigrant visa or other entry document. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Although the NTA identified the location for the 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 2 of 17 
3

initial hearing, it stated that the date and time of the hearing were “To Be 

Determined.” AR at 334.1

About a week later, Rivas Palencia was served with a Notice of Hearing, 

which identified the date, time, and location for the initial hearing. At the hearing, 

Rivas Palencia acknowledged service of the NTA and conceded his removability. 

B. Rivas’s Applies for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Protection 

under the CAT.

After his initial hearing, Rivas Palencia filed an application for asylum and

withholding of removal as well as protection under the CAT. To support his 

claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, Rivas Palencia 

testified at a hearing before the immigration judge, submitted an affidavit from his 

stepfather and mother, and filed various documentary evidence about his sisters’ 

murders and reports about country conditions in Honduras. 

Rivas Palencia testified that he fled Honduras for the United States because 

he feared that the family of a gang member would kill him. Approximately two 

years before Rivas Palencia came to the United States, two of his sisters were 

murdered in Honduras. They were murdered by Rudy Gonzalez, the boyfriend of 

one of his sisters, who was also a gang member. Gonzalez was ultimately 

convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Although Gonzalez 

1 Citations to “AR” refer to the administrative record.

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 3 of 17 
4

remained in prison, Rivas Palencia feared reprisals from Gonzalez’s family. After 

Rivas Palencia’s sisters were murdered, Gonzalez’s uncle was murdered. 

According to Rivas Palencia, Gonzalez’s family believed that he had murdered 

their uncle to avenge his sisters’ murders. After the uncle’s murder, Gonzalez’s 

cousins drove by Rivas Palencia’s house several times, threatening his life and 

yelling that their uncle’s death “was not going to be in vain.” AR 117. Rivas 

Palencia did not report these incidents to law enforcement in Honduras because he 

feared that his family would be in more danger if he did. 

Rivas Palencia also testified that he feared returning to Honduras because 

“there are a lot of criminals” there who have control over “everything that 

happens.” Id. at 118. He testified that in 2012—about four years before he came 

to the United States—he was approached about joining a gang. When he refused 

to join, gang members threatened him. 

During the hearing, Rivas Palencia was asked why he had not moved to 

another region in Honduras. He responded that he had not wanted to leave his 

mother who continued to live in his hometown in Honduras. He also indicated that 

he could not safely live anywhere in Honduras because there were gangs and drug 

dealers throughout the country.

Rivas Palencia also provided the immigration judge with an affidavit from 

his stepfather and mother in Honduras explaining that Rivas Palencia came to the 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 4 of 17 
5

United States because he feared for his life in Honduras. The affidavit began by 

addressing the murders of Rivas Palencia’s sisters. The affidavit explained that 

after the sisters were “killed in a violent manner,” the family “all live[d] in fear 

that something bad may happen to us.” Id. at 138. 

The affidavit also described how other gang members had threatened Rivas 

Palencia. The stepfather described an incident in which gang members tried to 

recruit Rivas Palencia. A group of “vandals” came to the house looking for Rivas 

Palencia. Id. The group wanted Rivas Palencia to join their gang and become a 

criminal. When Rivas Palencia refused, the group told him that they were going to 

kill him. 

Rivas Palencia also submitted background materials on his sisters’ murders, 

including their death certificates and several news articles about the murders. The 

articles explained that the sisters were attacked on a road and killed by Gonzalez 

and another man who were wielding machetes. The articles identified the motive 

for the crimes as “passion.” Id. at 250. 

Rivas Palencia also provided the immigration judge with background 

materials on Honduras, including documents prepared by the State Department, 

Human Rights Watch, and other organizations. These materials stated that 

Honduras suffered from “[p]ervasive societal violence,” its levels of crime and 

violence were “critically high,” and it had one of the highest murder rates in the 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 5 of 17 
6

world. Id. at 148, 270. The materials discussed that gangs were prevalent 

throughout Honduras and that youth gangs known as “maras” used threats and 

violence to control poorer districts in towns and cities. Id. at 286. The materials

also stated that the Honduran government lacked “sufficient resources to property 

respond to, investigate, and prosecute cases,” which led to criminals being able to 

operate with “a high degree of impunity.” Id. at 270. 

C. The Immigration Judge Denies Rivas Palencia’s Applications, and the 

BIA Dismisses His Appeal.

In an oral ruling, the immigration judge denied Rivas Palencia’s applications 

for asylum and withholding of removal and found he was not entitled to protection 

under the CAT. Rivas Palencia appealed to the BIA.

Before the BIA, Rivas Palencia requested for the first time that the removal 

proceedings against him be terminated on the basis that the immigration court was 

never vested with jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2015 (2018), he argued that because the NTA 

served on him did not include the date and time of the proceedings, the 

immigration court never had jurisdiction. Rivas Palencia also argued that the 

immigration judge erred in denying his applications for asylum and withholding of 

removal and finding that he was not entitled to protection under the CAT.

After review, the BIA dismissed the appeal, rejecting each of Rivas 

Palencia’s arguments. The BIA began by addressing the jurisdictional argument. 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 6 of 17 
7

Even though the NTA failed to include the time and date of his initial hearing, the 

BIA found that it was sufficient to vest the immigration court with jurisdiction over 

his removal proceedings. The BIA thus determined that it was not required to 

terminate the removal proceedings against Rivas Palencia. 

Next, the BIA considered whether Rivas Palencia was eligible for asylum. 

The BIA determined that the immigration judge had not clearly erred in finding 

that Rivas Palencia failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA 

assumed that Gonzalez’s cousins had threated Rivas Palencia’s life. But the BIA 

determined these threats did not establish that Rivas Palencia had a well-founded 

fear of persecution in Honduras. The BIA explained that Rivas Palencia had been 

able to continue to live in his family’s home “for approximately a year after the 

killing of the uncle of his sisters’ killers, which was a year after his sisters were 

murdered, and he did not experience harm during that period.” AR 4. In addition,

Rivas Palencia’s mother had been able to safely live in Honduras, which suggested 

that the family had not been targeted for harm. 

The BIA further concluded that Rivas Palencia failed to establish that “he 

would be unable to safely relocate within Honduras.” Id. When Rivas Palencia 

was asked why he had not relocated within Honduras, the BIA explained, he 

answered that he had not wanted to leave his mother and that there were high 

levels of crime throughout Honduras. Although crime was rampant in Honduras, 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 7 of 17 
8

the BIA explained that “an alien’s fear of criminality is not a basis for asylum.” Id. 

Because Rivas Palencia failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in 

Honduras and that he would be unable to relocate within Honduras, the BIA 

concluded that he was not entitled to asylum. The BIA then used the same 

reasoning to determine that Rivas Palencia was ineligible for withholding of 

removal or protection under the CAT. Rivas Palencia filed a petition for review in 

our Court. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Despite the Omissions in the Notice to Appear, the Immigration Court 

Had Jurisdiction over Rivas Palencia’s Removal Proceedings. 

 

We begin with Rivas Palencia’s argument that the immigration court lacked 

jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the NTA did not indicate the 

time and place of the removal hearing. We review de novo issues of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). 

We agree with the BIA that the immigration court was vested with jurisdiction 

over the removal proceedings.

The INA provides that an immigration judge shall conduct proceedings to 

determine whether a noncitizen is removable from the United States. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(a)(1). At the initiation of removal proceedings, the noncitizen must be 

served with an NTA specifying, among other things, the nature of the proceedings, 

the charges against the noncitizen, the requirement that the noncitizen provide 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 8 of 17 
9

address and telephone contact information, the consequences of failing to appear at 

a removal hearing, and “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be

held.” Id. § 1229(a)(1). The INA does not expressly provide the conditions upon 

which jurisdiction vests with the immigration judge, but regulations state that 

“[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, 

when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.14(a).

In Pereira, the Supreme Court recently considered a question “at the 

intersection of” § 1229(a), which sets forth the contents of an NTA, and the “stoptime” rule for cancellation of removal in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). 138 S. Ct. at

2109-10. To be eligible for cancellation of removal, a noncitizen must be 

continuously physically present in the United States for a certain length of time, 

and the stop-time rule states that the period of continuous physical presence stops, 

in certain circumstances, “when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 

1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). In Pereira, the Supreme Court held that a 

putative NTA that failed to specify either the time or place of the removal 

proceedings did not trigger the stop-time rule and thus did not end the noncitizen’s

continuous physical presence in the United States for purposes of cancellation of

removal eligibility. 138 S. Ct. at 2110. The Supreme Court reasoned that a 

“putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 9 of 17 
10

noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ 

and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” Id. at 2113-14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(d)(1)).

In Perez-Sanchez v. United States Attorney General, we considered a 

petitioner’s claim that the agency “never had jurisdiction over his removal case” 

when his initial NTA failed to include the time or date of his removal hearing. 

935 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir. 2019). Although the NTA was “unquestionably 

deficient” under § 1229(a) because it did not specify the time or date of the 

removal hearing, we held that the defect did not deprive the agency of jurisdiction 

over the removal proceedings because the statutory “time-and-place requirement” 

did not “create a jurisdictional rule,” but was instead a “claim-processing rule.” Id.

at 1153-55. Having determined that the agency properly exercised jurisdiction 

over the petitioner’s removal proceedings, we denied the portion of his petition

raising this jurisdictional issue. Id. at 1157.

Our decision in Perez-Sanchez forecloses Rivas Palencia’s jurisdictional 

challenge. Even though Rivas Palencia’s NTA failed to specify the time and date 

of his removal hearing, Perez-Sanchez establishes that the agency had jurisdiction 

over his immigration proceedings.

2

 

2 Rivas Palencia could have raised a non-jurisdictional argument that the agency failed to 

follow its claims-processing rules governing the procedural steps it was required to take in order 

to docket a case before an immigration judge. See Perez-Sanchez, 935 F.3d at 1157. But he

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 10 of 17 
11

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the BIA’s Denial of Rivas Palencia’s 

Asylum Application.

We now turn to Rivas Palencia’s argument that the BIA erred in concluding 

that he was ineligible for asylum. Because the BIA issued its own decision, we 

review only that decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted or 

explicitly agreed with the immigration judge’s opinion. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

578 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009).3

 “We review the BIA’s legal conclusions 

de novo and its factual determinations under the substantial evidence test.” Lopez 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 914 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019). Under the substantial 

evidence test, we will affirm the BIA’s factual findings as long as they are 

“supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record 

considered as a whole.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “We will reverse 

the BIA’s factual findings only if the record compels reversal, and the mere fact 

forfeited this argument by failing to challenge the validity of the NTA before the immigration 

judge. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 692 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed. No. 

19-779 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019). 

3 Under this standard, Rivas Palencia argues that we should review the immigration 

judge’s decision regarding his credibility and membership in a particular social group because

the BIA “simply adopted the [immigration judge’s] flawed reasoning, factual determinations, 

and non-existent credibility determination.” Petitioner’s Br. at 17. We disagree with his 

characterization of the BIA’s decision. The BIA did not expressly adopt or agree with any 

reasoning from the immigration judge about Rivas Palencia’s credibility or his membership in a 

particular social group. In its decision, the BIA instead focused on different elements of the 

asylum claim, explaining that Rivas Palencia failed to establish he had an objectively reasonable

fear of persecution in Honduras and would be unable to safely relocate within Honduras. We 

thus do not review the immigration judge’s decision regarding Rivas Palencia’s credibility or 

membership in a particular social group because the BIA did not expressly adopt or agree with 

these portions of the immigration judge’s decision. 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 11 of 17 
12

that the record may support a contrary conclusion is insufficient to justify reversal 

of the BIA’s findings.” Id.

An undocumented immigrant who is present in the United States may apply 

for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). The government has discretion to grant asylum 

if the applicant establishes that he is a “refugee.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee 

is a person “who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to 

avail himself . . . of the protection of, [his . . . country of nationality] because of 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). 

To establish asylum eligibility, the applicant must, with specific and credible 

evidence, show “(1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor,” or 

(2) “a well-founded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause . . . future 

persecution.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the law, persecution is 

an “extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal 

harassment or intimidation” and “mere harassment does not amount to 

persecution.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) 

(alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Rivas Palencia has not argued that he is entitled to asylum based on 

past persecution, so we focus our analysis on whether substantial evidence 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 12 of 17 
13

supports the BIA’s determination that he failed to meet his burden of proving a 

well-founded fear of future persecution. In order to establish a well-founded fear 

of future persecution, an applicant must show the following: “(1) he fears 

persecution based on his membership in a particular social group, political opinion, 

or other statutorily listed factor; (2) there is a reasonable possibility that he will 

suffer persecution if removed to his native country; and (3) he is unable or 

unwilling to return to his native country because he fears persecution.” Zheng v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2006).

4

 The applicant’s fear must 

be “both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Id. An applicant’s 

credible testimony that he genuinely fears persecution may satisfy the subjective 

component. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006). And 

evidence of past persecution or a valid reason to fear future persecution may fulfill 

the objective component. Id. We have cautioned that “[o]nly in a rare case does 

the record compel the conclusion that an applicant for asylum . . . has a wellfounded fear of future persecution.” Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 

1332 (11th Cir. 2010) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

4 An applicant need not establish a reasonable possibility of persecution if he instead 

proves “that he is a member of, or is identified with, a group that is subjected to a ‘pattern or 

practice’ of persecution in his country of nationality.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 

1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)). Rivas Palencia does not 

contend that he is a member of such a group. 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 13 of 17 
14

Even if an applicant satisfies these requirements, he does not have a wellfounded fear of future persecution if he could avoid persecution by safely 

relocating within his country of nationality. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii). 

When the alleged persecutor is a private individual, the applicant bears the burden 

of demonstrating that he cannot safely relocate within his country of nationality. 

Id. § 208.13(b)(3)(i). 

Here, the BIA determined that Rivas Palencia failed to demonstrate a 

reasonable possibility that he would be subject to persecution if he returned to 

Honduras. Record evidence supports this conclusion. Although Rivas Palencia 

was threatened by Gonzalez’s family after their uncle’s murder, the record 

evidence shows that for a year after Gonzalez’s uncle was murdered, Rivas 

Palencia remained in his hometown without being physically harmed. The fact 

that Rivas Palencia successfully avoided harm for this extended period of time is 

evidence that there is not a reasonable possibility that he would suffer future 

prosecution if he returned to Honduras. See Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1292 n.3. 

Rivas Palencia argues that he reasonably fears returning to Honduras due to 

the risk that Gonzalez’s family will kill him in retribution for their uncle’s murder. 

Certainly, Rivas Palencia testified that he had this fear. But, under the substantial 

evidence standard, we are not asking whether there is any evidence that supports 

Rivas Palencia’s position because the mere fact that the record may support the 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 14 of 17 
15

contrary conclusion is insufficient to justify a reversal. See Lopez, 914 F.3d at 

1297. On this record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

conclusion that Rivas Palencia failed to carry his burden to show a reasonable 

possibility of future persecution upon his return to Honduras.

5

Rivas Palencia nonetheless urges us to reverse the BIA’s decision because, 

he argues, the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his argument that he 

had a well-founded fear of future persecution. He contends that the substance of 

the BIA’s reasoning shows that it “has merely reacted [to] and has not really heard 

or thought through [his] claim or arguments.” Petitioner’s Br. at 26. 

We acknowledge that “when a decision of an immigration judge or the BIA 

is so lacking in reasoned consideration and explanation that meaningful review is 

impossible,” it is appropriate to grant a petition for review, vacate the agency’s

decision, and remand for further proceedings. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 

792, 803 (11th Cir. 2016). In examining whether there was reasoned

consideration, we look “to see whether the agency has considered the issues raised 

5 We note that the BIA also provided a second reason for denying Rivas Palencia’s 

application: he failed to carry his burden of proving that he could not safely relocate within 

Honduras. The BIA explained that Rivas Palencia failed to establish that his fear of persecution

exists nationwide. Because Rivas Palencia’s asylum claim is based on threats from Gonzalez’s 

family and he failed to show that he would remain at risk if he relocated within Honduras, we 

conclude that the record also supports the BIA’s alternative reason for denying asylum. See 

Mazariegos v. Office of U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2001) (concluding 

that substantial evidence existed to support a finding that the petitioner could safely relocate 

within his home country when he failed to show that his alleged persecutors operated throughout 

the entire country). 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 15 of 17 
16

and announced its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to 

perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. (alterations 

adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). An agency fails to give reasoned 

consideration to a claim “when it misstates the contents of the record, fails to 

adequately explain its rejection of logical conclusions, or provides justifications for 

its decision which are unreasonable and which do not respond to any arguments in 

the record.” Id.

The BIA’s decision shows that it gave reasoned consideration to whether 

Rivas Palencia had a well-founded fear of future persecution. There is no 

indication that the BIA misstated the contents of the record, failed to adequately 

explain its rejection of a logical conclusion, or provided an unreasonable 

justification for a decision that did not respond to an argument in the record. Rivas 

Palencia’s argument that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration boils down 

to an assertion that the record evidence was “clear” and compelled a finding that he 

“reasonably fears harm” if he were to return to Honduras. Petitioner’s Br. at 26. 

But as we explained above, we cannot say that the record compels this conclusion 

given the evidence showing that Rivas Palencia continued to live in Honduras for 

over a year after Gonzalez’s uncle was murdered. We thus conclude that the BIA 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 16 of 17 
17

did not err in finding that Rivas Palencia failed to demonstrate that he had an 

objectively reasonable fear of persecution.6

Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rivas 

Palencia failed to satisfy the standard for asylum eligibility, we also conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to satisfy the 

higher standards for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Zheng, 451 F.3d at 

1292 (recognizing that when a petitioner fails to establish a claim of asylum on the 

merits, he also fails to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or protection 

under the CAT).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Rivas Palencia’s petition is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

6 Rivas Palencia also argues that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his 

claim by failing to address whether he was a member of a particular social group. Because the 

BIA affirmed the denial of Rivas Palencia’s asylum claim on the ground that he failed to 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution, it was not required to address the other elements of 

his claim, including whether he was a member of a particular social group. See Indrawati v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1302 (11th Cir. 2015). 

Case: 19-10711 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 17 of 17