
    Gustavo VARGAS; Gabriela Madrical Estrella, a.k.a. Gabriela Madrigal Es-trella; Mayra Lezeth Elias, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73485.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 25, 2010.
    Gustavo Vargas, pro se.
    Gabriela Madrical Estrella, pro se.
    Mayra Lezeth Elias, pro se.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jesse Matthew Bless, Lance Lomond Jol-ley, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ — 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: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo Vargas, Gabriela Madrical Es-trella, and Mayra Lezeth Elias, husband, wife and daughter, and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying their motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Vargas and Lezeth Elias have failed to challenge the agency’s denials of their applications for cancellation of removal and thus, have waived those issues. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

The agency determined that Madrical Estrella’s failure to submit her fingerprints was sufficient reason to deny her application for cancellation of removal. 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 prior to April 2005 may be an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand for the agency to reconsider its denial of Madrical Estrel-la’s application. 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 do not reach Madrieal Estrella’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand.

Each party shall bear its oto costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     