Duque Mojica v. Holder

689 F.3d 1133

9th Cir.

2012

Check Treatment

Docket

Lisbeth Duque MOJICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73098

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Aug. 10, 2012

1133

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. Agency No. A096-538-353. Before: ALFRED T. GOODWIN, J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Dario Aguirre, Esquire, Aguirre Law Group, Denver, CO, Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lisbeth Duque Mojica 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 Duque Mojica 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)(1). We therefore granted the petition for review. Duque Mojica v. Holder, No. 07-73098 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2010) (unpublished).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. Duque Mojica, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2679, 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Because Mercado-Zazueta is no longer valid precedent on the issue of imputation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, see Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), we now reject Duque Mojica‘s imputation argument making use of her father‘s lawful permanent residence.

As the parties do not dispute that Duque Mojica, on her own, lacks the requisite lawful permanent residence, we uphold the BIA‘s decision to deny cancellation of removal.

DENIED.