U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Castellanos-Garcia v. Holder

Castellanos-Garcia v. Holder
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 2, 2010 · Fletcher, Reinhardt, Wardlaw
391 F. App'x 592

Counsel

Richard La Paglia, Esquire, Law Office of Richard La Paglia, Eloy, AZ, for Petitioner., Saul Greenstein, Esquire, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Regan Hildebrand, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Castellanos-Garcia v. Holder

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

Marco Aurelio Castellanos-Garda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Because the BIA decided this case without the benefit of our decision in Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1113-1116 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing the ongoing validity of Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005) (a parent’s admission for permanent resident status is imputed to the parent’s unemanci-pated minor children residing with the parent for the purpose of satisfying the seven-years of continuous residence “after having been admitted in any status”)), we remand to the BIA to allow it to reconsider Castellanos-Garcia’s appeal. See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Castellanos-Garcia’s equal protection challenge.

*593PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.