Roberson Flavio Santana, a Brazilian national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Santana claimed that if returned to Brazil, he would face torture from government officials, specifically referencing threats made by a District Attorney during a 2016 trial. He also argued that his conviction for involuntary manslaughter and attempted homicide in Brazil should not bar relief because he acted in self-defense when two women attacked his wife. The BIA rejected these claims, finding that Santana did not prove a likelihood of future torture and that his admitted violent acts met the 'serious reasons' standard for the nonpolitical crime bar.
The panel addressed two primary issues. First, regarding Convention Against Torture relief, the court applied the 'more likely than not' standard. The BIA found that threats made by District Attorney Medeiros were overzealous statements rather than credible threats of torture. The court noted that Santana offered no evidence regarding Medeiros's actual inclination or ability to carry out these threats. Furthermore, the record showed that Santana's family members resided in Brazil without harm until at least 2021. Consequently, the court held that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the BIA erred in finding Santana would not be tortured. Second, the court addressed the nonpolitical crime bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The 'serious reasons' standard is tantamount to probable cause. Santana admitted to grabbing an ice pick and stabbing two women who were attacking his wife, killing one. Although his defense in Brazil was self-defense, the jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter and attempted homicide. The court determined that even accepting Santana's self-defense narrative, he failed to rebut the BIA's finding that there were serious reasons to believe he committed a serious nonpolitical crime.
The order of removal against Santana stands. The decision reinforces that admitting to violent acts resulting in death or serious injury will likely trigger the nonpolitical crime bar even if the petitioner claims self-defense, unless they can show the BIA's finding was unreasonable. It also clarifies that generalized threats by officials, without evidence of specific intent or ability to carry them out, combined with evidence of family safety, are insufficient to prove a likelihood of torture.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download