Nongrak v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Nongrak v. Mukasey

300 F. App'x 479

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 2008

DocketNo. 05-70463

StatusPublished

This text of 300 F. App'x 479 (Nongrak v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nongrak v. Mukasey, 300 F. App'x 479 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Raksaphon Nongrak, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA concluded that Nongrak failed to establish good cause for a continuance. The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the denial of a continuance for fingerprint processing pri- or to April 2005 may be an abuse of discretion. See id. at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008). We note that the record does not appear to support the BIA’s statement that the IJ notified Nongrak of the need to update her criminal background check.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Raksaphon Nongrak, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA concluded that Nongrak failed to establish good cause for a continuance. The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2008), which held that the denial of a continuance for fingerprint processing pri- or to April 2005 may be an abuse of discretion. See id. at 1292-95; see also Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008). We note that the record does not appear to support the BIA’s statement that the IJ notified Nongrak of the need to update her criminal background check.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F. App'x 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nongrak-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack