United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60145
Summary Calendar
DEBAPRASAD DAS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A28-543-189
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Debaprasad Das, a native and citizen of India, petitions
this court to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) denying him relief under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Das contends that he faces torture at the
hands of an organized crime syndicate because Das can testify
against members of the organization in connection with a series
of bombings. Although review of an immigration decision is
ordinarily limited to the BIA’s decision, when the BIA adopts the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-60145
-2-
decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ), this court may review the
IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.
1997). As the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, but added its own
reasons, we review both decisions.
Das’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal
standard and relied on inapplicable precedent is without merit.
The BIA’s decision correctly sets forth the legal standard for a
claim under the Convention. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
As to Das’s claim that the IJ’s findings of fact were
erroneous, this court will uphold a finding that an alien is not
entitled to relief under the CAT if that finding is supported by
substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d
341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002). The substantial evidence standard
requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and
that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez
v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
The decisions of the BIA and the IJ are supported by
substantial evidence, including exhibits demonstrating that the
Indian government prosecuted members of the criminal organization
as well as Das’s testimony that the Indian government is actively
pursuing the organization’s leader. The record does not compel
the conclusion that Indian government officials would inflict,
instigate, consent to or acquiesce in Das’s torture. See id.; 8
C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
Acordingly, Das’s petition for review is DENIED.