Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis SANTIAGO; Maria Luisa Osorio De Santiago, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 6, 2009.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, Garbis N. Etmekjian, Etmekjian Law Offices, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Santiago and Maria Luisa Osorio De Santiago, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ determined that petitioners’ failure to resubmit their fingerprints was a sufficient reason to deny their applications for cancellation of removal. The agency, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the denial of a continuance for fingerprint processing prior to April 2005 may be an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider its dismissal of petitioners’ appeal. See id. at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1129-32 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.