Case Name: Francisco Javier SANCHEZ-MENDOZA, 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 612
Docket Number: No. 05-76226
Parties: Francisco Javier SANCHEZ-MENDOZA, 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: 612–612

Head Matter:
Francisco Javier SANCHEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76226.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 24, 2009.
David Neumeister, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
Holly Smith, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, 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
Francisco Javier Sanchez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 Sanchez-Mendoza'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 Sanchez-Mendoza'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 Sanchez-Mendoza'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.