Gustavo Vargas v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO VARGAS; GABRIELA
MADRICAL ESTRELLA, a.k.a. Gabriela
Madrigal Estrella; MAYRA LEZETH
ELIAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73485
Agency Nos. A078-243-982
A079-535-460
A079-535-461
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Vargas, Gabriela Madrical Estrella, and Mayra Lezeth Elias,
husband, wife and daughter, and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

AP/Research 07-73485 2
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 Estrella’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 Madrical Estrella’s challenge to
the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand.

-- 2 of 3 --

AP/Research 07-73485 3
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --