Case Explained: MARIA SUSANA NAVARRETE-MELGAR v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-06 The Fourth Circuit denied Maria Susana Navarrete-Melgar’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court held that the statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) for a Notice to Appear to specify the time and place of a hearing is not a jurisdictional defect that deprives an immigration judge of authority, but rather a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver if not raised timely. Relying on binding precedent in *United States v. Cortez*, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019), the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the failure to include a date and time in the Notice to Appear rendered the proceedings void, noting that Supreme Court decisions in *Pereira v. Sessions* and *Niz-Chavez v. Garland* addressed the “stop-time rule” for continuous presence eligibility rather than jurisdictional authority. Furthermore, the court found the petitioner forfeited her objection to the defective Notice because she failed to raise it before the immigration judge during the proceedings, despite having notice of the defect following the 2018 *Pereira* decision, and instead raised it for the first time on appeal to the BIA. Regarding the merits of the relief request, the court applied a substantial evidence standard of review and affirmed the adverse credibility determination made by the immigration judge, which was based on inconsistencies between the petitioner’s testimony and other evidence in the record. Because the petitioner provided no independent corroborating evidence sufficient to support her claims absent credible testimony, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief. Consequently, the petition for review is denied, leaving the removal order in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.