Case Name: Ladislado MENDOZA-CHAVEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom RIDGE, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; William D. McNamee, Oregon District Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; William Henry Day, District Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-20
Citations: 139 F. App'x 895
Docket Number: No. 04-35680
Parties: Ladislado MENDOZA-CHAVEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom RIDGE, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; William D. McNamee, Oregon District Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; William Henry Day, District Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 895–896

Head Matter:
Ladislado MENDOZA-CHAVEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom RIDGE, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; William D. McNamee, Oregon District Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; William Henry Day, District Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-35680.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 13, 2005.
Decided July 20, 2005.
Allen R. Peters, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kenneth C. Bauman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: RYMER, KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ladislado Mendoza-Chavez appealed the district court's denial of his § 2241 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Meanwhile, the REAL ID Act was enacted, which requires transfer of cases challenging final orders of removal that are pending in district courts to the court of appeals. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, § 106, 119 Stat. 231, 310-11 (May 11, 2005). We need not decide whether to treat Mendoza-Chavez's case as an appeal from denial of his § 2241 petition or as a petition for review under the REAL ID Act, because in any event our review of his due process argument is de novo and the result would be the same. Having considered his position, we agree with the district court. While the immigration judge's questioning could have been more restrained, Mendoza-Chavez had a full and fair opportunity to present his case. Cf. Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED; REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.