Case ID: f-appx_336/html/0746-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohamed Sadiq SALIM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 26, 2009.
    Filed July 7, 2009.
    Steven Andrew Ellis, Nitin Reddy, Sid-ley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, ARCHER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Mohamed Sadiq Salim’s (“Salim”) applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed. Salim petitions for review of the BIA’s summary affirmance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand to the BIA.

The outcome of this case is controlled by Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2008). Here, the IJ abused his discretion. Salim’s failure to comply with the ambiguous fingerprinting requirement was the sole basis on which the IJ denied Salim’s applications for relief. We remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ for further proceedings on the merits of Salim’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Petition GRANTED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . In light of our disposition based on Cui, we do not address Salim's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.