Case Name: Parminder Singh BHAGTANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-23
Citations: 371 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 07-71631
Parties: Parminder Singh BHAGTANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Parminder Singh BHAGTANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71631.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 12, 2010.
Filed March 23, 2010.
Martin Avila Robles, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Regina Byrd, Esquire, Yedidya Cohen, Trial, OIL, Lauren Fascett, DOJ — 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: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Parminder Singh Bhagtana, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA determined that Bhagtana's failure to submit his fingerprints by the deadline imposed by the IJ was sufficient reason to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). 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 refusing to continue proceedings for fingerprint processing may be an abuse of discretion. We remand for the agency to reconsider its denial of Bhagtana's application in light of Cui. 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.