IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60610

Summary Calendar

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60610 Document: 00514584816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2018
No. 17-60610

2

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 as the alien if accompanying . . . such alien”). Accordingly, this 

opinion addresses the merits of only Lesly’s asylum application.

 Case: 17-60610 Document: 00514584816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2018
No. 17-60610

3

persecution based on her membership in that group. See id. Lesly testified 

that she had been robbed four times within a few months in Honduras; 

however, the anonymous criminals who robbed Lesly never indicated that she 

had been singled out because of her membership in a particular social group. 

Though Lesly suggests that the criminal activity she experienced in Honduras 

was in direct response to her denunciation of the gangs in her village and to 

her resistance to their efforts to recruit Antony, there is no evidence that the 

anonymous criminals were even affiliated with a gang. The robberies Lesly 

fell victim to in Honduras were motivated by nothing more than a desire for 

money, and we have held that criminal actions based on a desire for money do 

not amount to persecution based on a protected category. See Shaikh v. Holder, 

588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009).

Lesly relies on the prior criminal activity she experienced in Honduras 

to bolster her claim that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. As 

just discussed, the criminal activity that she experienced at the hands of 

anonymous criminals, whom she could not identify as gang members, did not 

rise to the level of persecution. Moreover, as the IJ found, Lesly’s fear of future 

harm was undermined by her admission that several of her family members 

had remained in Honduras without any particular difficulty with gangs.

For the foregoing reasons, the BIA’s determination that Lesly was 

ineligible for asylum is supported by substantial record evidence. See Zhang, 

432 F.3d at 344. Withholding of removal requires the alien to meet a higher 

standard than asylum. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Because substantial evidence supports the denial of Lesly’s asylum claim, it 

follows that she is likewise ineligible for withholding of removal. See id. 

Antony, as a derivative beneficiary of his mother’s asylum application, is 

likewise not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See § 1158(b)(3)(A).

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60610 Document: 00514584816 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2018