NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-3531 _____________ BRUNO RIBEIRO DE ALMEIDA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (Agency No. A098-721-394) Immigration Judge: Alice S. Hartye _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 23, 2021 Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges. (Filed September 30, 2021) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Bruno Ribeiro1 De Almeida reentered the United States after removal. Hoping to remain, he met with an asylum officer who found he had no reasonable grounds to fear return to Brazil, a determination affirmed by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Seeing no error in that determination, we will deny Ribeiro De Almeida’s petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Ribeiro De Almeida is a native and citizen of Brazil. After previously being removed from the United States, he illegally reentered in 2019. Soon detected, and hoping to avoid another removal, he met with an asylum officer. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.8(e), 208.31(c). There, he described his fears about returning to Brazil, citing his “anti-gang” opinions and support of his intersex stepson. He explained that his stepson was bullied in Brazil by another child whose father, Francis Da Silva, is a drug trafficker. Ribeiro De Almeida threatened to call the police about Da Silva’s child, prompting Da Silva to threaten Ribeiro De Almeida and his family. Two gunshots were later fired at Ribeiro De Almeida’s house, which Ribeiro De Almeida attributes to Da Silva. The asylum officer concluded that Ribeiro De Almeida did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution because of a protected ground or a reasonable fear of torture. An IJ agreed and also found no reasonable possibility of future torture, because Ribeiro De Almeida did not show that the Brazilian government would tolerate attacks by Da Silva upon his return. 1 We amend the caption to correct the petitioner’s name, which was misspelled at the proceeding before the Immigration Judge. 2 Ribeiro De Almeida filed this petition for review,2 arguing: 1) that his procedural due process rights were violated by the Government’s failure to provide him a notice in Portuguese that his previous order of removal would be reinstated (“Reinstatement Notice”); and 2) the IJ’s negative reasonable fear finding was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Finding no error, we will deny the petition. II. DISCUSSION A. Procedural Due Process We review a procedural due process claim de novo, where a petitioner must show: “(1) that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case[,] and (2) that substantial prejudice resulted.” Serrano-Alberto v. Att’y Gen., 859 F.3d 208, 213 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 155 (3d Cir. 2007)) (alteration in original). Ribeiro De Almeida argues his procedural due process rights …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals