Case Name: Daniel Aristides CAMPOS-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-24
Citations: 323 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 05-76990
Parties: Daniel Aristides CAMPOS-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Daniel Aristides CAMPOS-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76990.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 24, 2009.
Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Edward John Duffy, Trial, Lyle Davis Jent-zer, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Aristides Campos-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's 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 BIA determined that Campos-Pine-da's failure to resubmit his fingerprints was a sufficient reason to deny his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA, 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 Campos-Pineda's appeal. See id. at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1129-32 (9th Cir.2008).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Campos-Pineda's due process contention.
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.