
    Jesus Christian PAEZ-CARRASCO, aka Jesus Christian Paez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70665.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 15, 2013.
    Bernadette Willeke Connolly, Law Offices of Bernadette W. Connolly, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    Matt Crapo, Oil, Michelle Gorden Lab-our, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Christian Paez-Carrasco seeks review of the Immigration Judge’s October 22, 2008, decision pretermitting Paez’s application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed from the United States. Paez sought to have his U.S. citizen step-father’s residence imputed to him for the purpose of establishing continuous residence to obtain cancellation of removal. However, he now concedes that Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2011, 182 L.Ed.2d 922 (2012), decided after the BIA’s decision, bars him from establishing his period of residence through a parent.

Paez also argues that the government has not met its burden of proving that he is removable. The evidence reveals, however, that Paez was convicted of several California controlled substances violations involving methamphetamine, which renders Paez removable as an alien convicted of violating a state law relating to a controlled substance. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).

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