Case Name: Julian CLARO-AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 490 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 08-70708
Parties: Julian CLARO-AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
Julian CLARO-AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70708.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Julian Claro-Agustin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez de Alcan-tar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency properly concluded that Cla-ro-Agustin 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 1102-03 (an applicant for adjustment of status who entered without inspection is not admitted in any status until his application is approved).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.