Case Name: Yakeline URBANO-SANCHEZ; Alexander Londono-Urbano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 314 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 05-72002
Parties: Yakeline URBANO-SANCHEZ; Alexander Londono-Urbano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
Yakeline URBANO-SANCHEZ; Alexander Londono-Urbano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Zachary McCready, Esquire, Law Offices of Zachary J. McCready, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, James Eugene Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Linda Wernery, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yakeline Urbano-Sanchez and her son Alexander Londono-Urbano, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA determined that Urbano-San-chez's failure to provide her fingerprints before her removal hearing was a sufficient reason to deny her relief application. 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 petitioners' appeal. See id. at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1129-32 (9th Cir.2008).
Petitioners' motion to remand is denied as moot.
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.