Asylum & withholding of removal; Serious nonpolitical crime bar; 8 USC §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii) & 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii); “Serious reasons to believe”; Probable cause standard; Maryland v Pringle; Burden shifting; 8 CFR §§ 1208.16(d)(2)(i) & 1240.8(d); Attempted murder charge; Intent; Defense of others; Convention Against Torture (CAT); 8 CFR § 1208.16(c)(2); Official consent or acquiescence; § 1208.18(a)(7); Substantial evidence

In an issue of first impression, the court interpreted the phrase “serious reasons to believe” in the statutory serious-nonpolitical-crime bar, and held that the bar requires only probable cause. It further held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Petitioner, a Brazilian citizen, conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief after DHS initiated removal proceedings. The IJ denied relief, and the BIA affirmed. On his petition for review, the court first adopted the probable-cause standard for the statutory phrase “serious reasons for believing,” holding that it “requires no more than a finding of probable cause.” Applying that standard, the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the bar applied where petitioner was charged with attempted murder in Brazil after shooting at his nephew’s vehicle, chasing him for about two kilometers, and seriously injuring him. The court rejected petitioner’s intent argument, reasoning that intent could be inferred from the facts and that the IJ and BIA were not required to “hyper-scrutinize” his admitted actions or credit his after-the-fact claim that he lacked intent to kill. It also rejected his defense-of-others argument because the record supported the conclusion that he “took the law into his own hands” after he knew his son was not with the nephew, and deadly force was not reasonably necessary. The court further held that substantial evidence supported denial of CAT relief. Police responded to prior harm, the nephew was prosecuted and imprisoned, and the record showed the government did not “turn a willfully blind eye” to petitioner. His prison-torture theory also failed because the BIA reasonably found the nephew’s alleged criminal-gang connections “limited” and “speculative.” The court denied his petition.