Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham MENDIOLA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Ramona Rae Hallam, Esquire, Counsel, Law Office of Ramona R. Hallam, Encini-tas, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Abraham Mendiola-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order pretermit-ting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.2009), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA decided this case without the benefit of our decision in Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, in which we held that for purposes of satisfying the five years of lawful permanent residence required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(l), a parent’s status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed to the unemancipated minor children residing with that parent. 580 F.3d at 1113. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.