United States v. Darold Maxfield

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2027
___________________________
Rosa Mejia-Lopez; P.T.M.; S.T.M.; J.D.T.M.
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
Pamela Bondi1
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: March 28, 2025
Filed: April 2, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
1Pamela Bondi has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United
States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

Guatemalan citizen Rosa Mejia-Lopez, on behalf of herself and her three
children, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).2
The BIA rejected Mejia-Lopez’s request to terminate the proceedings based on
Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), and dismissed her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying her protection under the CAT, asylum,
and withholding of removal.
The BIA concluded that Mejia-Lopez’s request to terminate proceedings was
foreclosed by precedent. The BIA further concluded that the CAT claim had been
waived, because Mejia-Lopez did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of the
relief in her counseled administrative appeal; and her asylum and withholding of
removal claims failed because she waived a challenge to the IJ’s dispositive finding
that she did not meet the burden of proof required to establish persecution based on
the conduct of private actors. We conclude that Mejia-Lopez’s challenge to the
agency’s jurisdiction over her removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s
precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); Tino v. Garland,
13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). As for the requests for relief and
protection from removal, we conclude that the claims are unexhausted and waived.
See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 423 (2023) (concluding that exhaustion
requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule
subject to waiver or forfeiture); Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th Cir. 2023)
(enforcing court-imposed exhaustion requirement when petitioner was represented
by counsel and argument was not presented to the BIA); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,
2Because the children’s asylum applications are derivative of Mejia-Lopez’s
application, all references are to Mejia-Lopez. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), (B);
Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (recognizing that there are no
derivative benefits associated with withholding of removal or protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT); thus, an applicant who does not independently
file for such relief will only be eligible as derivative asylum beneficiary).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a claim not meaningfully argued
in an opening brief is waived).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --