Ribeiro-Dos Santos v. Ashcroft

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1876
RONALDO RIBEIRO-DOS SANTOS,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Howard and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Stephen A. Lagana and Lagana & Associates on brief for
petitioner.
Kevin M. Laden, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Office
of Immigration Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Office of
Immigration Litigation, and Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Office of
Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
January 19, 2005
Per Curiam. Ronaldo Ribeiro-Dos Santos ("Ribeiro"), a
citizen of Brazil, entered the United States in April 2001 after
two of his brothers were killed in Brazil. In April 2002, the INS
began removal proceedings against him, culminating in an order of
removal by an immigration judge, thereafter affirmed by the Board
of Immigration Appeals. Ribeiro concedes removability but seeks
review in this court of the denial of his requests for political
asylum and withholding of removal.
Ribeiro stated in his asylum application he believed his
brothers' murders were due to their support of a local political
candidate, Capitao Erley, who won his office in 2000; Ribeiro
claimed to have learned this from the gang members who were
responsible for his brothers' murders, and who had also threatened
him and his wife subsequent to his brothers' deaths. At his
hearing Ribeiro also introduced the death certificate of his
brother-in-law, who had been killed not long before the hearing.
Ribeiro's removal hearing was held on October 29, 2002.
The immigration judge denied Ribeiro's applications for asylum and
withholding of removal, finding his account of events not credible
and implausible. The decision pointed to certain inconsistencies
in Ribeiro's story and, on the basis of inferences drawn by the
immigration judge, suggested that criminal violence rather than
political motives was the more likely explanation for the deaths of
Ribeiro's brothers.
-2-
On Ribeiro's appeal, the Board upheld the denials of
asylum and withholding on a different ground. Making no
determination as to Ribeiro's credibility, the Board found that
Ribeiro had failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting his
claim that his brothers had been killed for political involvement
or that he was himself threatened on this account. Accordingly,
the Board held that Ribeiro had failed to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution on an enumerated ground--here, political
opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000).
Because the Board has adopted its own ground for the
denial, we review its decision directly. Compare Mukamusoni v.
Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110, 119 (1st Cir. 2004), with Disu v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 13, 17 (1st Cir. 2003). Our review on issues of law is de
novo in accordance with ordinary principles of administrative law,
but as to factual issues review is deferential and requires only
that the Board's decision accord with substantial evidence. See
Gailius v. INS, 147 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 1998). Here, where the
Board found that Ribeiro had not carried his burden of proof, we
ask whether a reasonable factfinder had to reach the opposite
conclusion. Settenda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 89, 93 (1st Cir. 2004).
Ribeiro offered proof that his two brothers and brother-
in-law had been killed in Brazil, but his claim that the killings
were politically motivated was scarcely explained; the murders
occurred after a local election in which Ribeiro supported a
-3-
candidate, but he provided no further evidence that the murders or
any threats received by him or his wife had anything to do with a
political motive.
Indeed, Ribeiro admitted that his brothers' murders could
have been the result of a "robbery gone bad," and when asked--on
two occasions over the course of his hearing--why he believed that
the threats to his life were politically motivated, his only reply
was that he and his brothers had done nothing else to merit such
treatment. Although his application suggested that his harassers
had professed a political motive, at the hearing Ribeiro made no
mention of any political content when asked to recount the threats
made against him.
"While an alien seeking asylum is not required to provide
direct proof of his persecutors' motives, he must provide some
evidence of such motives." Samayoa Cabrera v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d
10, 14 (1st Cir. 2004). "The testimony of an applicant, if
credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without
corroboration," 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (2004), but in this instance
the testimony would scarcely warrant--let alone compel--a
factfinder to conclude that the murders were political or that
Ribeiro had any reasonable basis to fear political persecution.
Because the Board was justified in denying Ribeiro's
asylum claim, it was also justified in denying his request for
withholding of removal, which requires the applicant to meet an
-4-
even higher standard of proof. See Alvarez-Flores v. INS, 909 F.2d
1, 4 (1st Cir. 1990).
Affirmed.
-5-