Karina Pimentel-Ornelas 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.
Following the death of Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, Judge Harry**
Pregerson was drawn to replace Judge Rymer on the panel.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINA PIMENTEL-ORNELAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70437
Agency No. A073-949-310
MEMORANDUM*
On Remand From The United States Supreme Court
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.**
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
FILED
AUG 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70437 2
lawful permanent residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1). We
therefore granted the petition for review. Pimentel-Ornelas v. Holder, 432 F.
App’x 681 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted certiorari,
vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Holder v.
Martinez Gutierrez, 132 S. Ct. 2011, 2017 (2012). See Holder v. Pimentel-
Ornelas, 132 S. Ct. 2680 (2012).
Because Mercado-Zazueta is no longer valid precedent on the issue of
imputation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, see Sawyers v. Holder, — F.3d —, 2012 WL
2507513 (9th Cir. June 29, 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 Pimental-
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)(1) does
not apply to five-year requirement of § 1229b(a)(1)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --