Ricardo Guardiano 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICARDO GUARDIANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72305
Agency No. A046-814-674
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Guardiano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72305 2
questions of law, Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.
2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Guardiano was statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal because he could not establish seven years of continuous
residence in the United States after being “admitted in any status.” See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(2). Guardiano’s contention that his mother’s admission to the United
States may be imputed to him is unavailing. See Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430
F.3d 1013, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[F]or purposes of satisfying the seven-years of
continuous residence ‘after having been admitted in any status’ required for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), a parent’s admission for
permanent resident status is imputed to the parent’s unemancipated minor children
residing with the parent.”) (emphasis added).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --