Martins v. Garland

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals