Case Name: Jaime Pimentel HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-23
Citations: 472 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 09-71487
Parties: Jaime Pimentel HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 724–724

Head Matter:
Jaime Pimentel HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71487.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 23, 2012.
Win Eaton, Eaton & Associates, LLC, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaime Pimentel Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his 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 Pimentel Herrera was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he 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.