Duque Mojica, et al v. Holder
FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (ALFRED T. GOODWIN, J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER) DENIED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISBETH DUQUE MOJICA,
ERIC H. HOLDER
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
Filed August 10, 2012
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, J. Clifford Wallace, and
William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
Page: 1 of 4
Page: 2 of 4
MOJICA v. HOLDER
Lisbeth Duque Mojica 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 MercadoZazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2009), to hold that
Duque Mojica could impute her father’s legal status to herself
to meet the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1). We therefore granted the petition for review. Duque Mojica v. Holder, No. 07-73098 (9th
Cir. Dec. 27, 2010) (unpublished).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. Duque Mojica, 132
S. Ct. 2679 (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Because Mercado-Zazueta is no longer valid precedent on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 Duque Mojica’s imputation
argument making use of her father’s lawful permanent residence.
As the parties do not dispute that Duque Mojica, on her
own, lacks the requisite lawful permanent residence, we
uphold the BIA’s decision to deny cancellation of removal.
Page: 3 of 4
Page: 4 of 4
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON REUTERS—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2012 Thomson Reuters.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?