[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14725

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KAREN MELISSA GODOY-GALIANO, 

LUIS A. GODOY-GALIANO, 

Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209-901-873

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14725

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Karen Godoy-Galiano petitions for review of an order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s 

denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.1 We 

deny the petition.

I. 

Godoy-Galiano, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered 

the United States illegally with her minor son in November 2016. 

The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal 

proceedings against her and her son, charging that they were

present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).

In January 2018, Godoy-Galiano conceded removability. 

She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). She 

explained in her application that when she lived in Honduras, her 

mother mistreated her because she regretted giving birth to her 

and blamed her for lost opportunities. Her mother was also jealous 

that Godoy-Galiano was allowed to live with her grandmother, and 

1 Luis Godoy-Galiano, Karen’s son, was a derivative beneficiary of her asylum 

application. We therefore address only Karen’s application.

USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 2 of 6
20-14725 Opinion of the Court 3

her mother threatened her and her son. Godoy-Galiano decided to 

take her son to the United States to seek safety and better 

educational opportunities.

The immigration judge denied her application and ordered 

that she and her son be removed to Honduras. First, the 

immigration judge concluded that her application for asylum was 

time-barred because she did not file it before the applicable 

one-year deadline. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Second, the immigration

judge found that she was not entitled to withholding of removal 

because, among other reasons, her proposed social group—“single 

mothers in Honduras without male protection”—was neither

particular nor socially distinct, and even if it were, she failed to 

show the requisite causal nexus between that social group and the 

harm that she experienced in the past or feared facing in the future. 

Third, the immigration judge concluded that she did not qualify 

for CAT protection because she did not establish that she was 

personally at risk of being tortured by or with the

acquiescence of Honduran officials upon her return. See 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18(a).

Godoy-Galiano then appealed to the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. The Board agreed with the immigration judge’s decision 

to deny her application for asylum as untimely and recognized that 

her appeal did not challenge that conclusion. The Board affirmed 

the immigration judge’s determination that her proposed social 

group was not cognizable, reasoning that it was overbroad and 

lacked immutability. It also affirmed the immigration judge’s 

USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 20-14725

findings that Godoy-Galiano was not targeted on account of a 

protected ground and would not likely be targeted upon her 

return. It declined to address whether the harm that she 

experienced constituted persecution. And it agreed that she was 

not eligible for CAT relief based on the reasons that the 

immigration judge gave. The Board dismissed her appeal, and she 

then petitioned this Court for review.

II. 

We review the final order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals and the immigration judge’s decision to the extent that the 

Board expressly adopted that decision. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the Board’s legal 

conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for substantial 

evidence. Id. at 948. The substantial evidence standard is highly 

deferential: we affirm if the decision is “supported by reasonable, 

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a 

whole” and reverse only if the record compels a contrary 

conclusion. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 

2004) (en banc) (quotations omitted).

III. 

As an initial matter, we note that Godoy-Galiano did not 

challenge the immigration judge’s conclusion that her asylum 

application was untimely either before the Board or in her petition 

for review to this Court. If she did, we would lack jurisdiction to 

review that determination. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(d)(1). We 

USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 4 of 6
20-14725 Opinion of the Court 5

also conclude that Godoy-Galiano has abandoned her challenge to 

the Board’s determination about her eligibility for CAT relief. She 

makes only passing references to her application for CAT relief in 

her brief and does not raise arguments against the reasoning that 

the Board adopted. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 

1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). We further consider only her eligibility 

for withholding of removal.

To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must show 

that her “life or freedom would be threatened” if she were removed 

to another country because of her “race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The alien bears the burden of proving that it is 

more likely than not that she will be persecuted or tortured upon 

her return because of a protected ground. Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir. 2021). This nexus 

requirement demands that a protected ground be a “central 

reason” for the persecution, meaning that it is “essential to the 

motivation of the persecutor.” Id. (quotations omitted). The 

protected ground “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or 

subordinate to another reason for harm.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Even assuming for purposes of this discussion that

Godoy-Galiano’s proposed social group of “single mothers in 

Honduras without male protection” is cognizable, substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s finding that she did not satisfy the 

USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 20-14725

nexus requirement.2 Godoy-Galiano testified at her hearing before 

the immigration judge that her mother mistreated her because she 

resented her and was jealous that she lived with her grandmother. 

When asked if anything else motivated her mother to harm her

besides this resentment and jealousy, Godoy-Galiano said no. This 

explicit denial is substantial evidence that her status as a single 

mother was not a central reason for the suffering that her mother 

caused. Because Godoy-Galiano failed to satisfy the nexus 

requirement, we do not address her additional arguments that her 

proposed social group is cognizable and that she experienced 

persecution.

We DENY the petition.

2 Godoy-Galiano did not fail to exhaust this issue because she identified the 

issue and provided “information sufficient to enable the BIA to review and 

correct any errors below.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 

1297–98 (11th Cir. 2015).

USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 6 of 6