Court Opinion

ID: 9369994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 16:00:53.813381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.659777
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-9514    Document: 010110811206       Date Filed: 02/10/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 10, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  RAFAEL ADEMIR MARTINS,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                         No. 22-9514
                                                         (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK B. GARLAND,
  United States Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        Rafael Martins petitions for review of a reinstated order of removal by an

 immigration judge (IJ). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we deny

 the petition.

                                    BACKGROUND

        Mr. Martins is a native and citizen of Brazil. In April 2021, the Department of

 Homeland Security (DHS) removed him to Brazil for seeking admission to the United

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-9514    Document: 010110811206        Date Filed: 02/10/2023       Page: 2

 States without a valid entry document. In January 2022, Mr. Martins illegally

 reentered the United States. A Border Patrol agent issued Mr. Martins a copy of

 DHS Form I-871 “Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order.” R. at 17. The

 Border Patrol Agent signed the portion of the form indicating “the existence of a

 right to make a written or oral statement contesting this determination[] were

 communicated to the alien.” Id. Another section of the form titled

 “Acknowledgement and Response” included check boxes for Mr. Martins to indicate

 whether he did or did not wish to make a statement contesting the reinstatement

 determination and a space for him to sign. Id. Neither box is checked, and the

 signature block is stamped with the notation: “REFUSED TO SIGN.” Id.

       DHS reinstated its prior order of removal. Sometime later, Mr. Martins told

 officials he feared persecution or torture if he returned to Brazil. So, an asylum

 officer interviewed him. During the interview, Mr. Martins stated he was afraid

 because he had helped U.S. law enforcement against an American member of the

 Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico. Mr. Martins stated he had never been threatened or

 harmed in Brazil but he was afraid the cartel had members in Brazil. The asylum

 officer found Mr. Martins credible but concluded he did not have a reasonable fear of

 persecution or torture in Brazil.

       Mr. Martins requested review by an IJ. The IJ reviewed the credible fear

 interview and related documents and took testimony from Mr. Martins. During his

 testimony before the IJ, Mr. Martins again stated cartel members threatened him

 twice when he was in Mexico. The IJ also concluded Mr. Martins did not have a

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-9514    Document: 010110811206        Date Filed: 02/10/2023      Page: 3

 reasonable fear of the possibility of torture or persecution in Brazil. The IJ wrote:

 “No harm or threats in Brazil. Threats stem from Mexico. Feared harm is not on

 account of a protected ground. No grounds to fear torture or persecution in Brazil.”

 R. at 2. Mr. Martins then petitioned for this court to review the IJ’s determination.

                                     DISCUSSION

       Mr. Martins makes two arguments in his petition for review. First, he argues

 DHS violated his due process rights by not providing him with the opportunity to

 make a statement contesting the reinstatement of his 2021 removal order. Second, he

 argues substantial evidence does not support the asylum officer and IJ’s negative

 reasonable fear determination.

       In connection with the first argument, we review legal issues de novo. See

 Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005). The Immigration and

 Nationality Act empowers the Attorney General to summarily reinstate orders of

 removal against aliens who illegally reenter the United States:

              If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the
       United States illegally after having been removed . . . under an order of
       removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date
       and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible
       and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall
       be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.

 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Regulations require DHS to give an alien subject to

 reinstatement of a prior removal order the opportunity to make a statement before the

 agency proceeds with removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(b).

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-9514    Document: 010110811206        Date Filed: 02/10/2023       Page: 4

       Here, the record belies Mr. Martins’s assertion DHS did not give him an

 opportunity to make such a statement: the Border Patrol agent affirmatively averred

 that he advised Mr. Martins of this right, but that Mr. Martins refused to sign a form

 indicating his election. Mr. Martins argues the failure to check either box next to the

 signature line (that he refused to sign) indicates the Border Patrol agent did not

 inform him of his rights, but this inference is faulty. If Mr. Martins refused to sign

 the “Acknowledgement and Response” portion of the form, it is reasonable for the

 Border Patrol agent not to check a box indicating a choice Mr. Martins refused to

 make. The agent nonetheless reasonably treated Mr. Martins’s refusal to decide

 whether to make a statement (and concomitant refusal to sign a form memorializing

 that choice) as a refusal to make a statement.

       As to the second argument, this court has not determined the applicable

 standard of review of a negative reasonable fear determination. But we need not

 resolve the issue here because both Mr. Martins and the government contend that the

 substantial-evidence standard applies.1 Under that standard, “findings of fact are

 conclusive unless the record demonstrates that any reasonable adjudicator would be

 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Niang, 422 F.3d at 1196 (internal quotation

 marks omitted). To proceed beyond a reasonable fear interview, an alien must

 “establish[] a reasonable possibility that he or she would be persecuted on account of

       1
         We also note that at least two other circuits have concluded that negative
 reasonable fear determinations should be reviewed for substantial evidence. See
 Romero v. Att’y Gen., 972 F.3d 334, 337, 340 (3d Cir. 2020); Andrade-Garcia v.
 Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833–36 (9th Cir. 2016).

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-9514    Document: 010110811206        Date Filed: 02/10/2023       Page: 5

 his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or

 political opinion, or a reasonable possibility that he or she would be tortured in the

 country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(c).

       The asylum officer’s finding that Mr. Martins did not make this showing, and

 the IJ’s affirmance of this finding, is consistent with Mr. Martins’s testimony and

 statements in the credible fear interview in which he admitted he had never suffered

 harm or threats in Brazil, and that the only threats he received came when he was in

 Mexico. Mr. Martins also testified he had family in Brazil—both parents and two

 siblings—but he did not testify cartel members had harmed them, threatened them, or

 even approached them asking for Mr. Martins’s whereabouts. Even if a reasonable

 adjudicator could have found Mr. Martins’s testimony sufficient to establish a

 reasonable possibility of persecution or torture in Brazil, the record does not

 demonstrate “that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to so find. Niang,

 422 F.3d at 1196.

       We also reject Mr. Martins’s argument that the no-credible-fear conclusion

 was inconsistent with the asylum officer and IJ’s finding that Mr. Martins was

 credible. “[E]ven if the [agency] treats an alien’s evidence as credible, the agency

 need not find his evidence persuasive or sufficient to meet the burden of proof.”

 Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1680 (2021). Substantial evidence supports

 the conclusion that Mr. Martins’s testimony, although credible, was insufficient to

 further delay the reinstatement of his prior removal order.

                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-9514   Document: 010110811206      Date Filed: 02/10/2023   Page: 6

                                  CONCLUSION

       We deny the petition for review.

                                          Entered for the Court

                                          Carolyn B. McHugh
                                          Circuit Judge

                                          6