Case: 17-60610 Document: 00514584816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60610 FILED August 3, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LESLY ROSIBEL MATAMOROS-SERRANO; ANTONY ALEXANDER MELENDEZ-MATAMOROS, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A202 083 155 BIA No. A202 083 156 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lesly Rosibel Matamoros-Serrano and her son, Antony Alexander Melendez-Matamoros, are natives and citizens of Honduras who entered the United States near Hidalgo, Texas, on or about August 21, 2014, without having been admitted or paroled. They have filed a petition seeking review of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60610 Document: 00514584816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 No. 17-60610 the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Lesly sought asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group, specifically “Honduran mothers who flee Honduras because they do not want their children involved with gangs and their activities.” She listed Antony as a derivative beneficiary of her asylum application. Antony also filed an individual asylum application. The factual predicate of his application was the same as the predicate of his mother’s application. 1 We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the immigration judge (IJ) influenced the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the IJ. Accordingly, we review both decisions. See id. We review an immigration court’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Id. Under this standard, an immigration court’s factual findings will not be reversed unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 536-37. Among the findings of fact that we review for substantial evidence is the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Even if we assume that Lesly’s proposed social group is protected, Lesly has failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future 1 Because Antony could not logically be a member of Lesly’s purported social group and because he does not assert any other social group in the petition for review, it is presumed that he is proceeding as a derivative beneficiary of Lesly’s asylum application. Lesly’s eligibility for asylum is, therefore, dispositive of Antony’s claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (“A spouse or child . . . of an alien who is granted asylum under this subsection may . . . be granted the same status ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals