Mikityuk

MEMORANDUM ***

Aleksandr Mikityuk appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying benefits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Although it was proper for the ALJ to rely on Mikityuk’s description of his past work, see Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir.1989), the ALJ failed to develop the record to determine whether Mikityuk’s prior work as a painter foreman in the Ukraine constitutes a substantial gainful activity. In order for prior work to be considered past relevant work, the work must have been performed at the level of a substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.960 (b)(1). It is not clear from the record the hours Mikityuk worked as a painter foreman or the pay he received for such work. On a relevant matter such as this, the ALJ has a duty to develop the record, yet failed to do so. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we remand for the ALJ to determine whether Mikityuk’s prior work was a substantial gainful activity.

Remaining arguments that Mikityuk advances are not supported by the record. Mikityuk’s heart condition had no more than a minimal…