Sure. X is a brother, so X is a male. But X is a brother is not justified (although it may be true, of course).
Do you have in mind the distinction between not being justified, and being unjustified? If a claim is un
justified, then it doesn't seem it can justify anything. But 'not justified' seems to be, on your usage, an epistemic notion, and doesn't imply being unjustified. Thus, perhaps such a claim can confer justification because it is "basic". Is this how you are thinking about this?