Nolvia Karina Meza v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1709
NOLVIA KARINA MEZA,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: April 30, 2026
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Janeen Hicks-Pierre, PIERRE LAW PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
Director, Lisa Morinelli, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nolvia Karina Meza, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of Meza’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal.* We deny
the petition for review.
Meza first challenges the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, which the
Board affirmed on clear error review. We review credibility determinations for substantial
evidence, affording broad—though not unlimited—deference to the agency’s credibility
findings. Illunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have reviewed this issue in light of the administrative record, including the
transcript of Meza’s merits hearing and the supporting evidence, and the relevant legal
authorities. Despite Meza’s argument to the contrary, we conclude that the record evidence
does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B), including the adverse credibility finding, and that substantial evidence
supports the denial of relief, see I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); see
also Illunga, 777 F.3d at 207 (explaining that “omissions, inconsistent statements,
* Meza does not challenge the denial of her request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining
that petitioner’s failure to address the denial of CAT relief in the opening brief waives the
issue).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for
making an adverse credibility determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Meza also challenges the immigration judge’s finding that she did not submit
sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate her incredible testimony or independently
establish her claim and the finding that she did not establish the requisite nexus to a
protected ground. Upon review, we agree with the Attorney General that these issues were
not administratively exhausted because Meza did not raise them on appeal to the Board,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and thus they are not properly before us for review, see Tepas
v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2023) (observing that, although § 1252(d)(1) is not
jurisdictional, it “remains a mandatory claim-processing rule”). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --