United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-60262 

Summary Calendar 

Ledvi Lineveth Tabora-Mejia; Lesvi Alejandra TaboraAndrade, 

Petitioners, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

Agency No. A209 279 148 

Agency No. A209 279 147 

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ledvi Lineveth Tabora-Mejia and Lesvi Alejandra Tabora-Andrade 

(Lesvi), natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the decision 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 5, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-60262 Document: 00516381709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2022
No. 21-60262 

2 

immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their application for asylum and 

withholding of removal. Lesvi, Tabora-Mejia’s daughter, seeks derivative 

asylum as a rider on Tabora-Mejia’s application. 

Because the BIA affirmed without an opinion, the IJ’s decision 

became the final agency decision for our review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 

F.3d 830, 831–32 (5th Cir. 2003). We review the IJ’s factual findings for 

substantial evidence, see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), 

and we review questions of law de novo. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 

594 (5th Cir. 2007). Tabora-Mejia failed to exhaust before the BIA, and we 

therefore lack jurisdiction to consider her arguments (1) that the IJ failed to 

consider her particular social groups (PSGs) individually and did not conduct 

a sufficiently thorough analysis of the asylum claim under the framework set 

forth in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 251–52 (BIA 2014); (2) that 

the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s decision without an opinion, thereby 

compounding the aforementioned errors and violating the requirement that 

the BIA conduct a rigorous analysis; and (3) that the test set forth in M-E-VG- for determining the validity of PSGs is, itself, conceptually flawed. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359–61 (5th 

Cir. 2022). 

We agree with the IJ that Tabora-Mejia’s proposed PSGs—

“Honduran mothers opposed to gang member harassment of their 

daughters,” and “Honduran women opposed to objectification by gang 

members”—are invalid because they lack the requisite particularity and 

social visibility, see Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521–22 (5th Cir. 

2012), and do not exist independently of the harm asserted, see Gonzales-Veliz 

v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 232 (5th Cir. 2019). Because Tabora-Mejia failed to 

establish a cognizable PSG, she cannot satisfy the requirements for asylum or 

withholding of removal. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. 

Case: 21-60262 Document: 00516381709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2022
No. 21-60262 

3 

The petition for review is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED 

IN PART. 

Case: 21-60262 Document: 00516381709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2022