
    Carlos MARTINEZ GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70436.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    July 11, 2012.
    Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       Following the death of Judge Beezer, Judge Clifton was drawn to replace Judge Beezer on the panel.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Martinez Gutierrez 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 Martinez Gutierrez could impute his father’s legal status to himself to meet the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(l). We therefore granted the petition for review. Martinez Gutierrez v. Holder, 411 Fed.Appx. 121 (9th Cir.2011) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 71, 180 L.Ed.2d 939 (2011), and reversed our decision, Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2011, 182 L.Ed.2d 922 (2012).

Because Mercado-Zazueta is no longer valid precedent on the issue of imputation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, see Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911, 2012 WL 2507513 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam), we now reject Martinez Gutierrez’s imputation argument concerning his father’s lawful permanent residence.

As the parties do not dispute that Martinez Gutierrez, on his own, lacks the requisite lawful permanent residence, we uphold the BIA’s decision to deny cancellation of removal.

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