Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0748-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rohde Enriqueta CADE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70636.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
    Manuel Armando Rios, The Rios Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Liza Murcia, Stuart Nickum, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rohde Enriqueta Cade, 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 Cade 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 (petitioner was not admitted in any status until her status was adjusted); see also Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir.2011) (a grant of work authorization does not confer admission).

Cade’s remaining contention regarding an alleged processing delay is unavailing.

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