Pimentel-Ornelas v. Holder

475 F. App'x 223

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 6, 2012
• Docket: 09-70437
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Karina Pimentel-Ornelas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). In our original decision, we relied on Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.2009), to hold that Pimentel-Ornelas could impute her father’s legal status to herself to meet the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(l). We therefore granted the petition for review. Pimentel-Ornelas v. Holder, 432 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir.2011) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2011, 2017, 182 L.Ed.2d 922 (2012). See Holder v. Pimentel-Ornelas, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2680, 183 L.Ed.2d 42 (2012).

Because Mercado-Zazueta is no longer valid precedent on the issue of imputation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, see Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam), we now reject Pimentel-Ornelas’ imputation argument concerning her father’s lawful permanent residence.

We remand, however, for the BIA to address in the first instance Pimentel-Ornelas’ contention that she had accrued five years of lawful permanent residence by the time the BIA issued its decision. See Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir.2006) (“stop time” provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l) does not apply to five-year requirement of § 1229b(a)(l)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

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