Case Name: Joike MEMAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-12
Citations: 199 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 05-2259
Parties: Joike MEMAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
Joike MEMAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-2259.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 12, 2006.
Joike Memah, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition granted and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joike Memah, a native and citizen of Indonesia, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Memah specifically states that he does not challenge the denial of asylum and CAT relief. Rather, he contests only the denial of withholding of removal, asserting, inter alia, that the IJ and Board failed to address his claim that he suffered past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2006).
As our review discloses that this claim has not in fact been addressed below, we grant the petition for review and remand this matter to the Board for a determination of Memah's past persecution claim in the context of his claim for withholding of removal. See Gonzales v. Thomas, - U.S. -, -, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 1615, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED