Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosa MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 23, 2012.
    
      Ali Golchin, Law Offices of Ali Golchin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Terri J. Seadron, Esq., Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., Doj-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS-District, I & Amp;NS, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosa Martinez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly concluded that Martinez-Lopez was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she lacked seven years of continuous residence in the United States after being “admitted in any status.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2); Vasquez de Alcantar, 645 F.3d at 1103 (filing an application for adjustment of status does not confer admission); see also Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir.2011) (a grant of work authorization does not confer admission).

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