Karen Melissa Godoy-Galiano v. U.S. Attorney General
20-14725
| 11th Cir. | Dec 8, 2021Background
- Karen Godoy-Galiano, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. illegally in Nov. 2016 with her minor son and conceded removability in Jan. 2018.
- She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, alleging harm and threats from her mother and fear as a single mother lacking male protection.
- The immigration judge denied asylum as untimely, found the proposed social group not cognizable and lacking nexus to the harm, and denied CAT relief for failure to show government acquiescence.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the untimeliness (which the petitioner did not challenge), affirmed the social-group determination as overbroad and non-immutable, and agreed on denial of CAT relief.
- On judicial review, the Eleventh Circuit treated the timeliness and CAT issues as abandoned, limited review to withholding of removal, and held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial because petitioner failed to show nexus between her alleged protected characteristic and the harm.
- The court denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum application | Godoy-Galiano sought asylum but did not contest IJ/BIA finding of untimely filing | IJ/BIA: application was filed after one-year deadline | Petitioner did not challenge timeliness before BIA or on review; court lacks jurisdiction and treated issue as abandoned |
| CAT protection eligibility | Asserted risk of torture on return | BIA/IJ: failed to prove torture by or with acquiescence of Honduran officials | Petitioner made only passing references and abandoned CAT challenge; BIA’s denial stands |
| Cognizability of proposed social group ("single mothers in Honduras without male protection") | Group is a particular, socially distinct, immutable social group | BIA: overbroad and lacks immutability | BIA concluded group not cognizable; court assumed cognizable for argument but resolved case on nexus |
| Nexus between protected ground and harm (withholding standard) | Harm from mother stemmed from being a single mother lacking male protection | DHS/BIA: testimony showed harm was due to mother’s resentment/jealousy, not petitioner’s single-mother status | Substantial evidence supports no causal nexus; petitioner failed to show protected ground was a central reason for persecution; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for BIA decisions and adoption of IJ’s reasoning)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (substantial-evidence review framework)
- Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021) (nexus requires protected ground be a "central reason" for persecution)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (issues abandoned when not meaningfully argued on appeal)
- Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) (exhaustion satisfied if petitioner identifies issue with information sufficient for BIA review)