Mario Alberto Miranda Verdugo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO ALBERTO MIRANDA
VERDUGO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73462
Agency No. A096-569-500
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alberto Miranda Verdugo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order concluding he was
statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73462 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512
F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we grant the petition for review.
The BIA concluded that Miranda Verdugo could not rely on his mother’s
period of legal permanent resident status to establish that he had been “an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(1). The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of our decision in
Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, in which we held that for the purpose of establishing
the required five years of lawful permanent residence, “a parent’s status as a lawful
permanent resident is imputed to the unemancipated minor children residing with
that parent.” 580 F.3d 1102, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore remand for the
BIA to reconsider Miranda Verdugo’s eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --