Case Name: Deda Nikoll MAKAJ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-14
Citations: 175 F. App'x 938
Docket Number: No. 05-73244
Parties: Deda Nikoll MAKAJ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: NOONAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 938–939

Head Matter:
Deda Nikoll MAKAJ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73244.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 3, 2006.
Decided April 14, 2006.
Deda Nikoll Makaj, Eloy, AZ, Pro Se Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Home land Security, Phoenix, AZ, Patricia A. Smith, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: NOONAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.
The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We reject petitioner's due process claim. The immigration judge's ("IJ") conduct was fully consistent with its obligation to develop the record under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l), and did not rise to the level of a due process violation. Compare Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir.2003); and Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 782 n. 9 (9th Cir.2000); with Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2003).
Nonetheless, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") abused its discretion by failing to consider petitioner's Convention Against Torture ("CAT") claim, which was properly raised before the BIA in both Makaj's notice of appeal and brief. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir.2004); Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir.2002); Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 903 (9th Cir.2000). We therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA for consideration. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED TO BIA.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.