
    Naira Nadirovna GUSEINOVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71687.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed April 2, 2009.
    Shawn Sedaghat, Law Offices of Shawn Sedaghat, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, James E. Grimes, Leslie McKay, Oil, Mark C. Walters, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Naira Nadirovna Guseinova, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 Guseinova’s failure to provide her fingerprints prior to her removal hearing was a sufficient reason for the IJ to deem her relief applications abandoned. 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 motion to continue for fingerprint processing prior to April 1, 2005 (the effective date of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47) may be an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider its dismissal of Guseinova’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 do not address Guseinova’s remaining contentions.

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.
     