Case Name: Pramesh K.C. MAHARAJ, Petitioner, v. Eric HOLDER, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-24
Citations: 540 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 12-71006
Parties: Pramesh K.C. MAHARAJ, Petitioner, v. Eric HOLDER, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Pramesh K.C. MAHARAJ, Petitioner, v. Eric HOLDER, Respondent.
No. 12-71006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 11, 2013.
Filed Sept. 24, 2013.
Evangeline G. Abriel, Director, Legal Analysis, Research, And Writing, Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner.
Pramesh Maharaj, pro se.
Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.