Pramesh Maharaj v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRAMESH K. C. MAHARAJ, No. 12-71006 Petitioner, Agency No. A073-123-391 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC HOLDER, Respondent, On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 11, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, ** Chief District Judge. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo the BIA’s and IJ’s determinations of purely legal questions, and we review their * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. factual findings for substantial evidence. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we decide whether to grant or deny the petition for review based on the BIA’s or IJ’s reasoning rather than our own independent analysis of the record. Id. at 1029. We find that substantial evidence supported the determination that Maharaj failed to establish a clear probability of future torture, and that the BIA and the IJ adequately conducted an individualized analysis. There was no due process error in the IJ’s handling of the case. The Petition is DENIED. 2