Opinion ID: 4303715
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withholding under Statute

Text: 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 never represented 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.