Manuel De Jesus Martinez- Escalera v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL DE JESUS MARTINEZ-
ESCALERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70977
Agency No. A048-144-371
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 4, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.**
Manuel de Jesus Martinez-Escalera petitions for review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. The
BIA rejected Martinez-Escalera’s argument that he could meet the seven-year
FILED
FEB 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

residency requirement for cancellation of removal by imputing the residence of his
United States citizen children. We deny the petition.
Martinez-Escalera attempts to rely on our decision in Cuevas-Gaspar v.
Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005), in which we held that a parent’s
admission for permanent residence status is imputed to the parent’s unemancipated
minor child for purposes of satisfying the residency requirement for cancellation of
removal. The Supreme Court abrogated Cuevas-Gaspar with Holder v. Martinez
Gutierrez, 132 S. Ct. 2011, 2017 (2012) (holding that the BIA’s interpretation of
the cancellation of removal statute as requiring an alien to satisfy the residency
requirements on his own was reasonable). Id. We appreciate the efforts of counsel
to distinguish Martinez Gutierrez, but those efforts ultimately fail.
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --