Case Name: Raksaphon NONGRAK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-07
Citations: 300 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 05-70463
Parties: Raksaphon NONGRAK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Raksaphon NONGRAK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 7, 2008.
Roman P. Mosquéela, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raksaphon Nongrak, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA concluded that Nongrak failed to establish good cause for a continuance. The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the denial of a continuance for fingerprint processing pri- or to April 2005 may be an abuse of discretion. See id. at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008). We note that the record does not appear to support the BIA's statement that the IJ notified Nongrak of the need to update her criminal background check.
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.