Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0125-01.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 Aug. 3, 2012.
    Ramona Rae Hallara, Esquire, Counsel, Law Office of Ramona R. Hallam, Encini-tas, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, 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).
    
   ORDER

The government’s petition for panel rehearing is granted.

The memorandum disposition filed on June 9, 2011, is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition is filed concurrently with this order.

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 pretermi-ting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in determining that Mendiola-Sanchez may not impute his father’s lawful permanent residence for purposes of meeting the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1) — (2). See Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam).

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