In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 17‐1998

RODRIGO RAMOS‐BRAGA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of an Order of  

the Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A 097‐837‐809

____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2018 — DECIDED MAY 21, 2018

AMENDED AUGUST 14, 2018

____________________

Before BAUER, KANNE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.  Rodrigo Ramos‐Braga, a citizen of Brazil, pe‐

titions for review of the denial of his second motion to reopen

proceedings on his applications for special‐rule cancellation

of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). His motion was both nu‐
2 No. 17‐1998

merically barred and untimely filed with the Board of Immi‐

gration Appeals, but Ramos‐Braga argued that these limits

should be excused under the doctrine of equitable tolling for

ineffective assistance of counsel or under a statutory excep‐

tion based on changed country conditions. The Board deter‐

mined that neither exception applied and that the time and

numerical limits therefore barred his motion. Because the

Board did not abuse its discretion, we deny the petition.  

I.

Ramos‐Braga was raised in a neighborhood of São Paulo,

Brazil that came to be controlled by a multi‐national gang

named the Primero Comando Capital (PCC). His father dealt

drugs for the gang and was one of its managers, until he had

a falling out with the gang’s leader. Starting when Ramos‐

Braga was 13, the PCC tried repeatedly to recruit him, but he

refused to join. Unrelenting, PCC members caught Ramos‐

Braga at school and around town, physically attacked him at

least ten times, and eventually threatened him with death. In‐

itially, Ramos‐Braga reported these attacks to Brazilian offi‐

cials, but local police did nothing in response and eventually,

officers would beat him when he made reports, claiming that

he was a suspected gang member. At age 16 he stopped re‐

porting his PCC encounters to police because in one instance

officers beat him until he spat blood, and he came to believe

that the police were paid by the PCC to harm him. When Ra‐

mos‐Braga was about 18 years old, PCC members offered him

one “last chance” to join; after he refused they assaulted him

with pipes—severely injuring him and hospitalizing him for

two weeks. He stopped attending college and spent months

moving between homes of his family members in other parts

of the city and another town. When he returned to São Paulo,
No. 17‐1998 3

a PCC member shot him from behind, putting him back in the

hospital for days.  

In January 1999, three months after being shot, Ramos‐

Braga was admitted to the United States on a student visa. He

eventually married a U.S. citizen, but the two had a tumultu‐

ous relationship. Ramos‐Braga estimated that his wife physi‐

cally abused him over 100 times.  

Seven years after he arrived, the Department of Homeland

Security issued a Notice to Appear charging Ramos‐Braga

with overstaying his visa and therefore being removable un‐

der 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Ramos‐Braga conceded his re‐

movability and eventually sought special‐rule cancellation of

removal for battered spouses and withholding of removal un‐

der 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and CAT.  

While removal proceedings were pending, Ramos‐Braga

and his wife got into a fight. He was convicted of battery un‐

der Wisconsin law and, after he used a jailhouse phone to ask

his wife not to testify, intimidation of a witness, WIS. STAT.

§§ 940.19(1), 940.42. DHS added a charge that he was remov‐

able under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been con‐

victed of two crimes involving moral turpitude. He chal‐

lenged removability on this ground.  

At his removal hearing, Ramos‐Braga testified about the

beatings by PCC members and police officers. He also said

that the gang recruited young men and that he believed he

specifically was recruited because of something his father had

done, but he did not know what. The IJ found Ramos‐Braga

credible but denied his applications for special‐rule cancella‐

tion and withholding and ordered him removed to Brazil.  
4 No. 17‐1998

To obtain special‐rule cancellation, Ramos‐Braga had to

prove, among other things, that he had been battered by his

wife and was not subject to certain disqualifying grounds of

removability orinadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The

IJ concluded that Ramos‐Braga was disqualified on two

grounds: his convictions for battery and witness intimidation

were crimes of moral turpitude, and he had been confined in

excess of five years total for past convictions. See 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1229b(b)(2)(A)(iv), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1182(a)(2)(B),

1227(a)(2)(A)(ii).  

Ramos‐Braga could receive withholding of removal in two

ways: either under statute or under CAT. To receive withhold‐

ing of removal under statute, he had to prove that it was more

likely than not that, if he were removed, he would be perse‐

cuted in Brazil on account of his membership in a particular

social group. See id. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). The IJ

concluded that Ramos‐Braga suffered past persecution but

presented “little proof” that this persecution was on account

of his particular social group, namely his family ties to his fa‐

ther. Instead, “the greater weight of the evidence support[ed]

the conclusion that he was persecuted because he refused the

PCC’s recruitment efforts.” To merit withholding under CAT,

Ramos‐Braga had to demonstrate that it was more likely than

not that, if removed to Brazil, he would be tortured by or with

the acquiescence of a public official. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2). The IJ determined that he did not carry his

burden to prove that he was more likely than not to be tor‐

tured by either the police or PCC.  
No. 17‐1998 5

Ramos‐Braga, who was represented by counsel, appealed

the denial of his applications for withholding but not the de‐

nial of special‐rule cancellation. The Board affirmed the IJ’s

decision on December 18, 2014.  

In January 2015, Ramos‐Braga petitioned this court for re‐

view and moved to stay his removal. His attorney ended the

representation over a fee dispute, however, and Ramos‐Braga

continued pro se, filing motions in this court and, after his pe‐

tition was denied, another petition for review that was dis‐

missed for lack of jurisdiction for having been filed more than

30 days after the final order of removal.  

Ramos‐Braga, still pro se, moved the Board to reopen pro‐

ceedings on his applications for relief from removal and to re‐

consider its dismissal order. The Board denied his motion as

untimely in June 2015, but he maintains he never received no‐

tice of this decision.  

Ramos‐Braga filed a second pro se motion to reopen or re‐

consider on August 31, 2015, and at issue here is the Board’s

denial of that motion on the grounds that it was untimely and

successive. Ramos‐Braga explained that his motion to reopen

was late because his former attorney had promised repeatedly

to file a timely motion, but he never did. He also said that con‐

ditions in Brazil had gotten worse since the hearing, and he

offered evidence to that effect. A year later, in August 2016,

Ramos‐Braga retained his present attorney, who filed a sup‐

plemental brief supporting the still‐pending second motion to

reopen. Through counsel, Ramos‐Braga argued that his sec‐

ond motion to reopen should not have been barred because

the exceptions for equitable tolling for ineffective assistance

of counsel and changed conditions in the country of removal
6 No. 17‐1998

excused his noncompliance. Regarding the first exception, Ra‐

mos‐Braga said that his attorney in the original appeal to the

Board had waived meritorious arguments for special‐rule

cancellation and withholding under CAT.  

The Board denied the second motion to reopen based on

its conclusion that Ramos‐Braga did not meet either excep‐

tion. Equitable tolling could not benefit him, the Board said,

because he did not file his motion as soon as possible after

learning of his former attorney’s alleged errors, nor was he

prejudiced by any possible error. The Board also concluded

that he did not offer evidence of conditions in Brazil that had

changed since the removal hearing; his evidence of “ongoing”

PCC threats were a “continuation” of past harms he experi‐

enced in Brazil.  

II.

Noncitizens can file just one motion to reopen immigra‐

tion proceedings, and that motion must be submitted within

90 days of the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). These time and numerical limits are,

however, non‐jurisdictional claim‐processing rules, subject to

the doctrine of equitable tolling and statutory exceptions.

See Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2154 (2015); Ji Cheng Ni v.

Holder, 715 F.3d 620, 623 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)); Pervaiz v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 488, 490

(7th Cir. 2005).  

The question here is narrow: we must decide only whether

the Board wrongly concluded that neither equitable tolling

nor changed conditions excuse the limits on Ramos‐Braga’s
No. 17‐1998 7

second motion to reopen.1 This court reviews the Board’s de‐

nial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, and an

abuse occurs if the decision lacks a “rational explanation, in‐

explicably depart[s] from established policies, orrest[s] on [ei‐

ther] an impermissible basis,” Marinov v. Holder, 687 F.3d 365,

368 (7th Cir. 2012), or legal error, Habib v. Lynch, 787 F.3d 826,

831 (7th Cir. 2015).  

A. Equitable Tolling

Ramos‐Braga contends that the Board wrongly refused to

equitably toll the limits on his second motion to reopen his

applications for special‐rule cancellation and withholding of

removal under CAT. Equitable tolling applies if the noncitizen

demonstrates prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance

and exhibits diligence by seeking relief as soon as reasonably

possible. See Yusev v. Sessions, 851 F.3d 763, 767 (7th Cir. 2017).  

Even if we assume the Board erred in its analysis of dili‐

gence, Ramos‐Braga has failed to show that he was prejudiced

by his former attorney’s errors. Ramos‐Braga argues that he

was prejudiced by the attorney’s failures to appeal (1) the de‐

nial of his application for special‐rule cancellation and (2) the

IJ’s conclusion, in denying CAT relief, that the PCC was not

likely to torture him with the government’s acquiescence

upon his return to Brazil.

                                                 

1 Ramos‐Braga also argues that the Board wrongly denied his motion to

reconsider the Board’s order dismissing his original appeal. The Board de‐

nied this motion also for being inexcusably untimely and numerically

barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), without

considering whether the underlying dismissal order required reconsider‐

ation. We therefore have no merits decision to review on the issue of re‐

consideration.  
8 No. 17‐1998

1. Special‐Rule Cancellation

Ramos‐Braga contends that his former attorney should

have appealed the denial of special‐rule cancellation and ar‐

gued that he remained eligible for this relief because, contrary

to the IJ’s conclusion, his Wisconsin battery conviction is not

a crime involving moral turpitude.  

But, as the Board determined in denying the motion to re‐

open, this battery conviction was a crime involving moral tur‐

pitude under the law as it existed when Ramos‐Braga ap‐

pealed in December 2014. Specifically, the Board concluded

that Ramos‐Braga’s battery conviction with a domestic‐abuse

enhancement, WIS. STAT. §§ 940.19(1), 973.055(1)(a), was

properly classified by the IJ as a crime involving moral turpi‐

tude under Matter of Silva‐Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (2008)

(Silva‐Trevino I). The Board observed that Silva‐Trevino I was

still “controlling” when Ramos‐Braga’s former attorney ap‐

pealed from the removal order, and thus Ramos‐Braga was

not prejudiced by the failure to appeal on this ground.2  

Ramos Braga contends that his former attorney should

have argued on appeal to the Board that the IJ misapplied

Silva‐Trevino I. But the IJ’s analysis was proper. Silva Trevino I

established a three‐step framework for determining whether

an alien’s conviction involved moral turpitude. First, the IJ

had to decide whether there was a “realistic probability” that

the criminal statute might be applied to punish conduct that

                                                 

2 Silva‐Trevino I was vacated by the Attorney General, Matter of Silva‐Tre‐

vino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 550, 553 (2015) (Silva‐Trevino II), and the Board has

now adopted the categorical approach as defined in Descamps v. United

States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), see Matter of Silva‐Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 826,

830–31 (BIA 2016) (Silva‐Trevino III).  
No. 17‐1998 9

involves moral turpitude. If so, the IJ was next required to

look to the record of conviction—the indictment, judgment,

jury instructions, guilty plea, or plea transcript—to determine

if the conviction actually involved moral turpitude. And fi‐

nally, if the record of conviction did not answer this question,

the IJ had to inquire into the facts of the prior offense by look‐

ing to “any evidence, otherwise admissible in removal pro‐

ceedings.” Silva‐Trevino I, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 698, 704; Sanchez

v. Holder, 757 F.3d 712, 717–18 (7th Cir. 2014). The IJ here, at

the last step, looked to a police statement attached to the crim‐

inal complaint and determined that Ramos Braga had com‐

mitted a crime involving moral turpitude because he inten‐

tionally caused bodily harm to his wife. See Matter of Sanudo,

23 I. & N. Dec. 968, 971–72 (BIA 2006).

Ramos‐Braga asserts that the IJ should not have proceeded

past step one, because the Wisconsin battery statute under

which he was convicted was not “divisible,” meaning it con‐

tained only a single set of elements to prove. See Descamps v.

United States, 570 U.S. 254, 257 (2013). But Silva‐Trevino I did

not permit the IJ to end the inquiry by finding the statute in‐

divisible; instead, it required the IJ to proceed to step two if

the statute “encompasses both conduct that involves moral

turpitude and conduct that does not.” 24 I. & N. Dec. at 698–

99. Ramos‐Braga does not contest the IJ’s conclusion that a

Wisconsin battery conviction with a domestic‐abuse enhance‐

ment reaches conduct that involves moral turpitude. Hence,

Silva‐Trevino I required the IJ to proceed past step one.  

Still, Ramos‐Braga says that Descamps, a Supreme Court

criminal sentencing case, required a categorical approach that

precluded the IJ from looking past an indivisible battery stat‐

ute to decide whether his crime involved moral turpitude.
10 No. 17‐1998

570 U.S. at 257–58. But Descamps did not overrule Silva‐Tre‐

vino I, which set forth in unequivocal terms the framework

that the Attorney General required IJs to follow when decid‐

ing if a conviction involved moral turpitude. Furthermore,

Silva‐Trevino I considered the categorical approach applied in

criminal cases like Descamps and did not find a compelling

need for this approach in the immigration context. See Silva‐

Trevino I, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 700 (“[T]he rationale for the lim‐

its ... on factual inquiries in criminal sentencing cases does

not carry over to the immigration question” required under

the immigration statute.). Unlike the categorical approach in

Descamps, Silva‐Trevino I instructed IJs to proceed to step two:

“If it appears that the government in question would apply its

criminal statute to reach both turpitudinous and non‐turpi‐

tudinous acts—perhaps because the statute is divisible, but

also because the statute could realistically cover a wide range

of conduct.” Sanchez, 757 F.3d at 717 (emphasis supplied). Alt‐

hough the Attorney General’s new approach to determining

a crime of moral turpitude adopts the categorical approach

outlined by Descamps, the IJ was not permitted to ignore the

Attorney General’s then‐controlling decision by anticipating

this change in the law. The IJ was bound by Silva‐Trevino I and

the case law of our circuit. Mata‐Guerrero v. Holder, 627 F.3d

256 (7th Cir. 2010); Ali v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008).  

Ramos‐Braga also argues that the IJ erred at step three of

Silva‐Trevino I by ignoring evidence in the police statement

that he was the victim, not the aggressor. But the IJ noted the

police statement included Ramos‐Braga’s story that he was

fleeing from his wife and accidentally struck her face with the

door. Instead, the IJ credited the wife’s version, also in the po‐

lice statement, that Ramos‐Braga struck herface with his hand
No. 17‐1998 11

and pushed her into a shelf, causing her nose and lip to swell,

bruise, and bleed. Thus, the IJ did not ignore evidence.  

Because Silva‐Trevino I still applied when Ramos‐Braga

appealed to the Board, he was not prejudiced by the lack of a

challenge to the IJ’s classification of his battery conviction in

denying special‐rule cancellation. If his attorney had raised

the argument he presses now, the Board would have rejected

it, as it reasonably did in denying the motion to reopen.

2. Withholding under CAT

Ramos‐Braga argues next that he was prejudiced in the ap‐

peal of his denied CAT application. He contends that his for‐

mer attorney should have argued that the IJ failed to consider

evidence that, if he is removed to Brazil, the PCC would tor‐

ture him without intervention by public officials. In denying

the second motion to reopen, the Board said this potential er‐

ror could not have prejudiced Ramos‐Braga because the evi‐

dence he offered, to the IJ originally and in support of reopen‐

ing, could not establish that official torture or acquiescence

was more likely than not.  

“CAT protection requires evidence that the Petitioner will

be tortured by the government, or with the government’s ac‐

quiescence.” Lopez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 484, 492 (7th Cir. 2016).

Acquiescence means “the public official, prior to the activity

constituting torture, ha[d] awareness of such activity and

thereafter breach[ed] his or her legal responsibility to inter‐

vene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7); Lopez,

810 F.3d at 493. We will reverse the Board’s conclusion that

Ramos‐Braga’s evidence is insufficient only if the evidence

compels the conclusion that official acquiescence is more
12 No. 17‐1998

likely than not. See Orellana‐Arias v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 476, 490

(7th Cir. 2017).  

Relying on our precedent in Rodriguez‐Molinero v. Lynch,

808 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 2015), Ramos‐Braga argues that there

is a “substantial risk” that the Brazilian government will ac‐

quiesce to his torture by the PCC if he is removed to Brazil.

But his evidence does not compel that conclusion.

Ramos‐Braga relies heavily on the violence he experienced

at the hands of the police and the PCC when he was a teen‐

ager. Yet the fact that Ramos‐Braga was beaten by police

roughly twenty years ago does not show that he is likely to be

tortured by officials today. See Lopez, 810 F.3d at 493 (noting

that man who stabbed petitioner twenty‐five years earlier

may no longer seek to harm petitioner). Moreover, Ramos‐

Braga has offered nothing more than his own speculation that

the police acted at the PCC’s urging when they attacked him.

See Lhanzom v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 833, 845 (7th Cir. 2005) (re‐

versing IJ’s decision that rested on testimony for which wit‐

ness had no personal knowledge). The evidence of his beat‐

ings by the PCC in the late 1990s is similarly stale. Even if the

Brazilian government acquiesced to that violence, its conduct

twenty years ago is not compelling evidence of how the gov‐

ernment would respond to such violence today.  

Ramos‐Braga introduced more current evidence as well.

His strongest evidence is an affidavit from his mother. In

2016, his mother complained to police after PCC members, al‐

legedly acting on a vendetta against Ramos‐Braga, robbed his

grandfather at home in 2015 and threatened his mother in

2016. According to Ramos‐Braga’s mother, PCC members

stated over the internet that they “will be waiting” for Ramos‐
No. 17‐1998 13

Braga when he returns home. Officers in one district referred

his mother to another district, which promised to investigate

the 2016 threats, but the investigation has not been resolved.

Ramos‐Braga takes the referral of the complaint from one of‐

fice to another and the lack of resolution as evidence that the

police are unwilling to protect his family—and, ultimately,

him—from the PCC.

The PCC’s threats to Ramos‐Braga’s family do offer sup‐

port for his contention that the PCC is likely to torture him if

he returns to Brazil. But CAT offers protection from govern‐

ment torture, not private conduct. Thus, Ramos‐Braga cannot

secure relief simply by showing a substantial risk that the

PCC will torture him; he must demonstrate that there is a sub‐

stantial risk that Brazilian officials will acquiesce in the tor‐

ture. This is where Ramos‐Braga’s claim founders.  

The police department’s response to the complaint lodged

by Ramos‐Braga’s mother falls far short of establishing that

the police are indifferent to or complicit in the PCC’s threats

to Ramos‐Braga’s family. For one thing, the police promised

to investigate—they neither ignored nor denied his mother’s

request for help. Ramos‐Braga contends that the police gave

his mother the run‐around, but the evidence does not support

that inference. Referring a complaint from one district to an‐

other is more consistent with bureaucracy than animosity,

and the fact that the investigation is not yet resolved does not

mean that the police are turning a blind eye to the PCC.  

Again, we will only disturb the Board’s determination if

substantial evidence on the record compels a contrary conclu‐

sion. When reviewing a claim that the government acquiesced

to torture, we have required much more evidence of official

complicity or corruption to satisfy that standard than Ramos‐
14 No. 17‐1998

Braga has offered. For example, in Rodriguez‐Molinero, we

granted a petition for review because the petitioner demon‐

strated a substantial risk that the Mexican government would

acquiesce to, or even collaborate in, his torture by a drug car‐

tel. 808 F.3d at 1138–1140. This conclusion was based on the

fact that the petitioner had been previously tortured by the

police at the behest of the drug cartel, as well as unchallenged

expert testimony that the Mexican government is rife with

corruption and helpless to prevent gang violence throughout

the country. Id. at 1136–37. In Wanjiru v. Holder, 705 F.3d 258

(7th Cir. 2013), we remanded a CAT claim because the IJ

brushed over “extensive evidence” that police and govern‐

ment officials abetted and directed a gang that posed a threat

of torture to the petitioner. Id. at 266. Indeed, the International

Criminal Court had “confirmed charges (a step similar to

finding probable cause)” against two senior Kenyan officials

for allegedly using the gang to murder thousands of citizens.

Id. In Mendoza‐Sanchez, 808 F.3d 1182 (7th Cir. 2015), we re‐

manded (at the government’s request) and said that an appli‐

cant had a “strong” CAT claim because he had evidence that

police officers in Mexico routinely collaborated with and pro‐

tected a nationwide gang that had targeted him. Id. at 1184–

85. A human‐rights report from the State Department detailed

widespread corruption of Mexican police, who, at both the

city and state level, were directly involved in the activities of

drug organizations by “kidnapping, extort[ing], and provid‐

ing protection for, or acting directly on behalf of, organized

crime and drug traffickers.” Id. at 1184.  

In each of these cases, the petitioner showed that the gov‐

ernment is utterly indifferent or downright complicit in the

face of violence and torture by gangs. Ramos‐Braga argues
No. 17‐1998 15

that the PCC wields similar influence in the Brazilian govern‐

ment, but his evidence belies that argument.  

Ramos‐Braga contends that the PCC has “infiltrated” the

Brazilian police forces, and he offers a news article reporting

that PCC members “may have participated” in explosives

trainings for police officers in São Paulo. If gang members had

infiltrated police forces, this would indeed be evidence that

the government is unable to protect people targeted by the

gang. See Mendoza‐Sanchez, 808 F.3d at 1183, 1185. But the re‐

port Ramos‐Braga offers falls well short of showing that PCC

members are within the ranks of Brazilian police. According

to the report, some of the explosives training courses were of‐

fered by private contractors who failed to perform back‐

ground checks––possibly allowing PCC members to register

for the course without the knowledge of the São Paulo police

department. Evidence of a poorly planned explosives training

does not demonstrate that the Brazilian police have been in‐

filtrated by the PCC.

In fact, Ramos‐Braga’s own evidence undermines his ar‐

gument that officials and the PCC cooperate. The article about

explosive trainings discloses that in 2012 the PCC frequently

attacked police forces, and that the two sides committed

around 200 “revenge killings” within a couple months. A 2014

article from a Brazilian newspaper shows that Brazilian offi‐

cials initiated a new operation against the PCC and detained

members attempting to smuggle drugs out of the country.

Other reports he offered show that police have arrested doz‐

ens of PCC members and that Brazilian authorities are in a

“bloody struggle” to subvert the PCC. Ramos‐Braga did offer

a report from the Australian government showing that some

Brazilian officials were corrupt as of 2012; police officers were
16 No. 17‐1998

arrested for selling information to the PCC about investiga‐

tions of the gang’s drug trafficking, while other officers ex‐

tracted bribes from the PCC through kidnapping and abusing

the family of PCC members. However, the report does not

show, as Ramos‐Braga asserts, that corrupt police physically

harmed citizens to assist the PCC.

Finally, Ramos‐Braga presents news articles and a country

report issued in 2013 by the U.S. Department of State that,

taken together, show that police officers in Brazil “routinely”

kill criminal suspects, targeting men from the “slums.” These

reports do not suggest police complicity with the PCC; Ra‐

mos‐Braga introduces them to show that the police may target

him because he is from the slums, and police in his hometown

may attack him for resembling his father, a criminal. But re‐

ports that police officers target men from the slums generally

is not evidence that they would torture Ramos‐Braga specifi‐

cally. See Orellana‐Arias, 865 F.3d at 490 (concluding that coun‐

try reports of government’s acquiescence to violence against

citizens was not evidence that government would acquiesce

to torture of petitioner specifically); Lopez, 810 F.3d at 493 (de‐

ciding that petitioner, a gay man, did not show threat of vio‐

lence specific to him by submitting reports that gay men have

been victims of violence); Rashiah v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1126,

1133 (7th Cir. 2004) (concluding that CAT relief was unavaila‐

ble to applicant who offered country report describing in‐

stances of torture but no evidence that he would be specifi‐

cally targeted). Twenty years ago police officers knew Ramos‐

Braga lived in the slums and suspected he was a criminal, but

there is no evidence that these officers remain with the force

or that they would recognize him today.  
No. 17‐1998 17

In sum, Ramos‐Braga’s past experiences are troubling, but

his evidence does not compel the conclusion that Brazilian of‐

ficials today would torture him or permit the PCC to do so.

Thus we will not disturb the Board’s conclusion that Ramos‐

Braga offered insufficient evidence of official acquiescence.

And because Ramos‐Braga’s evidence is insufficient, he was

not prejudiced by any possible attorney error in the appeal of

his CAT application. The Board therefore did not abuse its dis‐

cretion in deciding that equitable tolling did not apply to Ra‐

mos‐Braga’s second motion to reopen.   

B. Changed Conditions

Ramos‐Braga also contends that changed conditions in

Brazil warrant reopening his applications for withholding of

removal. 3 No time or numeric limits apply to a motion to re‐

open that is based on “changed circumstances arising ... in

the country to which deportation has been ordered.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). For this exception to apply, Ramos‐Braga

needs evidence of a changed country condition that is “mate‐

rial and was not available and could not have been discovered

or presented” at the removal hearing. See id.; Ji Cheng Ni,

715 F.3d at 623. This court’s task is to determine whether the

Board abused its discretion in deciding that changed country

conditions do not excuse the limits on Ramos‐Braga’s motion

                                                 

3 Ramos‐Braga also incorporates into his withholding arguments his view

that changed conditions in Brazil warrant reopening proceedings so that

he can apply for asylum. But the Board never had an opportunity to con‐

sider arguments related to asylum because Ramos‐Braga did not develop

them in his motion to reopen at issue here. We therefore express no opin‐

ion on this portion of his petition.
18 No. 17‐1998

to reopen. See Kebe v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir.

2007). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion.  

To show that conditions in Brazil have changed, Ramos‐

Braga offered evidence that: (1) the PCC has “marked” him to

die because the gang’s leader believes his brother and two

cousins were killed by Ramos‐Braga’s father in 1997; (2) the

PCC has “barbarically murdered” eight of Ramos‐Braga’s

cousins, most recently in 2013; (3) the PCC has offered a re‐

ward for Ramos‐Braga’s whereabouts; (4) after the PCC

learned that Ramos‐Braga might return to Brazil, they robbed

his grandfather at home using a gun in 2015 and threatened

his mother over the internet in 2016; (5) one police district re‐

ferred his mother’s request to investigate the 2016 threats, and

the other district promised to investigate the threats, but the

investigation has not been resolved; and (6) Brazilian police

have routinely committed extrajudicial killings of men from

the slums whom they suspect to be criminals.  

1. Withholding under CAT  

Pertaining to his CAT application, Ramos‐Braga argues

that the PCC’s recent growth and threats are a changed con‐

dition that the Board “irrationally” discounted as a “continu‐

ation” of dangers that he previously experienced in Brazil. He

relies on an out‐of‐circuit decision, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d

942 (9th Cir. 2004), in which the Ninth Circuit said “changed

circumstances will almost always relate to [an] initial

claim ... . The critical question is ... whether circumstances

have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously

did not have a legitimate claim ... now has a well‐founded”

claim. Id. at 945. A worsening PCC threat is, however, imma‐

terial to whether Ramos‐Braga’s CAT application must be re‐
No. 17‐1998 19

opened. As discussed above, he needed but failed to offer ev‐

idence that compels finding that Brazilian officials would ac‐

quiesce to his torture by the PCC.

Ramos‐Braga also argues that the Board ignored new evi‐

dence that he would face torture directly from public officials

if he is removed to Brazil. He again points to the recent news

articles reporting that Brazilian police have targeted men

from the slums and criminal suspects for extrajudicial kill‐

ings. He stresses that police in his hometown beat him, possi‐

bly suspecting he was a criminal because he lived in the

slums. He says that his evidence, together, establishes a sub‐

stantial likelihood that police officers will torture him. The

Board, while considering Ramos‐Braga’s argument for equi‐

table tolling, said that the evidence he offered—initially and

with his second motion to reopen—did not show that officials

were more likely than not to torture him.  

We will reverse the Board’s conclusion that Ramos‐

Braga’s evidence is insufficient only if the evidence compels a

contrary conclusion. See Lopez, 810 F.3d at 492–93. As ex‐

plained above, the articles Ramos‐Braga recently offered do

not compel the conclusion that public officials are more likely

than not to torture him. We have said thatreports that officials

have tortured members of a certain group do not necessarily

demonstrate that a petitioner who belongs to that group

would face a substantial risk of torture if removed. Bernard v.

Sessions, 881 F.3d 1042, 1047–48 (7th Cir. 2018). To show a risk

specific to him, Ramos‐Braga needed evidence that Brazilian

police would recognize him as part of the groups targeted for

torture. See Lopez, 810 F.3d at 493; Rashiah, 388 F.3d at 1133.

Yet he offered no evidence that Brazilian police today would

suspect him of crime or would know, roughly twenty years
20 No. 17‐1998

later, that he lived in the slums in 1998. To the extent he fears

police torture because he would be forced to live in the slums

if removed to Brazil, this fear of generalized violence is insuf‐

ficient to establish that he in particular is more likely than not

to be tortured. See Lozano‐Zuniga v. Lynch, 832 F.3d 822, 830–

31 (7th Cir. 2016).

Because Ramos‐Braga did not present evidence that con‐

ditions in Brazil have changed such that he now may have a

CAT claim, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

his motion to reopen proceedings on that form of relief.

2. Withholding under Statute

Ramos‐Braga next argues that changed conditions in Bra‐

zil excuse the limits on his motion to reopen his application

for withholding under statute, but again he is wrong. He first

points to new evidence that the PCC’s intent to kill him stems

from the gang leader’s desire to avenge the murders of his

family members. But this motive has not changed since the

killings of the gang leader’s family in 1997, well before the

2014 removal hearing, and thus the motivation, though re‐

cently discovered, is not a changed condition.  

Second, Ramos‐Braga argues that the PCC’s offer of a re‐

ward for his whereabouts is a changed condition, but he has

not carried his evidentiary burden. To show that the reward

offer is a changed condition, Ramos‐Braga needed evidence

that the offer was made after the removal hearing. See Xiu

Zhen Lin v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 596, 596–97 (7th Cir. 2008). In his

petition he sidesteps his burden and contends the Board spec‐

ulated that the reward offer might date back to 1998. But that

is not what the Board said; it observed that the gang’s intent

to harm him dated that far back and said that no evidence,
No. 17‐1998 21

including an affidavit from his mother’s neighbor who re‐

ported the reward offer, showed the offer was made after the

removal hearing. Instead of clarifying when the reward was

offered, Ramos‐Braga says that the offer could not be from

1998 because the neighbor learned of it through her 19‐year‐

old son, a current PCC member who would have been an in‐

fant then. But this reasoning is flawed; the offer may have

been old when the neighbor’s son learned of it. As difficult as

it might have been for Ramos‐Braga to gather evidence while

detained, he has neverrepresented that he exhaustively inves‐

tigated when this offer was made.

Last, Ramos‐Braga disputes the Board’s conclusion that

recent dangers posed by the PCC are a continuation of condi‐

tions that existed before the removal hearing. Although wors‐

ening conditions in the country of removal may constitute a

change that requires reopening, see id.; Ji Cheng Ni, 715 F.3d

at 627; Mekhael v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 326, 327 (7th Cir. 2007),

the PCC’s recent threats, robbery, and murders are immate‐

rial to whether Ramos‐Braga’s application for withholding

under statute should be reopened. The IJ denied this applica‐

tion not for lack of evidence of past persecution, but because

Ramos‐Braga did not establish a nexus between his likely per‐

secution by the PCC and his particular social group. Thus to

present evidence that conditions have degenerated so that he

now has a claim for withholding under statute, Ramos‐Braga

needed to show a change related to this nexus between the

PCC’s persecution and his social group based on ties to his

father. He did present newly found evidence of the PCC’s mo‐

tive for harming him, but again, that motive has not changed

since 1997.  
22 No. 17‐1998

In sum, Ramos‐Braga failed to offer new, material evi‐

dence that conditions in Brazil have changed since the re‐

moval hearing.  

III.

The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramos‐

Braga’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred and

untimely. Ramos‐Braga neither experienced prejudice from

his former attorney’s potential errors nor presented new, ma‐

terial evidence that conditions in Brazil have changed since

the removal hearing. Accordingly, the petition for review is  

DENIED.