Case Name: Mitzi Yanet SEPULVEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 401 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 08-74871
Parties: Mitzi Yanet SEPULVEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
Mitzi Yanet SEPULVEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74871.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
Kelechi Charles Emeziem, Esquire, Emeziem & Ogbu, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jesse Matthew Bless, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mitzi Yanet Sepulveda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' 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, Ramos Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Sepulveda's contention that the agency erred in refusing to impute her father's longer physical presence in the United States in order to satisfy the requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A) is unavailing. See Ramos Barrios, 581 F.3d at 859-65 (rejecting contention that parent's physical presence should be imputed to minor petitioner). The agency therefore correctly determined that Sepulveda lacked the ten years of continuous physical presence necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.