There's no evidence, because the Romans didn't care. Augustine wasn't a Berber, I'm pretty sure, because he was Christian and conversion among the Berbers (who are (relatively) indigenous to Africa and white, suntans not withstanding) was as far as we can tell rare. But which of the various ethnic groups that remain (Nubian, Numidian, Punic/Carthaginian, I don't know what, Italian-Roman expat.), it's hard to guess. He and his mother seem to have had family in Italy but we know little about his father. Wikipedia says that "Augustine was of Berber descent", but their cites are all encyclopædic or textbooks; I don't know what their ultimate source is. I'll have a look in the U. L. next time I have a minute. I do know, however, that he spoke Punic, which might just be coincidence and/or convenience but may imply Punic ancestry, which is Semitic/Berber mixed.
As for Victor I, I doubt we even know that much; the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the African origin is testified to by the Liber Pontificalis, which is first pulled together from we're-not-sure-what in the seventh century and so may not know much, but it apparently names his father as Felix, which is at least a Latin name. That doesn't mean much though, as a Christian family would usually have such. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus has even less. Text for these two is online, the LP here in Latin (the translation is copyright) and Jerome here. Eusebius also mentions him in his Ecclesiastical History (English translation online here) but says nothing of his origins.
The word the LP uses for African is interesting though, "Afer" not "Africanus". Classical usage implies that this is native African not European immigrant, but I can also find instances of it as a nickname for Europeans with many years' service in Africa alas. The trouble with this sort of thing is that the web presence of any sane discussion has always been drowned by African Caucus-style "all key figures in European history were really black!" So in the end I don't have a final opinion, but it seems a shade more likely that Victor was genuinely dark-pigmented than was Augustine.
ask a historian
As for Victor I, I doubt we even know that much; the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the African origin is testified to by the Liber Pontificalis, which is first pulled together from we're-not-sure-what in the seventh century and so may not know much, but it apparently names his father as Felix, which is at least a Latin name. That doesn't mean much though, as a Christian family would usually have such. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus has even less. Text for these two is online, the LP here in Latin (the translation is copyright) and Jerome here. Eusebius also mentions him in his Ecclesiastical History (English translation online here) but says nothing of his origins.
The word the LP uses for African is interesting though, "Afer" not "Africanus". Classical usage implies that this is native African not European immigrant, but I can also find instances of it as a nickname for Europeans with many years' service in Africa alas. The trouble with this sort of thing is that the web presence of any sane discussion has always been drowned by African Caucus-style "all key figures in European history were really black!" So in the end I don't have a final opinion, but it seems a shade more likely that Victor was genuinely dark-pigmented than was Augustine.