
    Karina PIMENTEL-ORNELAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70437.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Aug. 6, 2012.
    Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, Trial, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       Following the death of Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, Judge Harry Pregerson was drawn to replace Judge Rymer on the panel.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 lawful permanent residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(l). We therefore granted the petition for review. Pimentel-Ornelas v. Holder, 432 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir.2011) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2011, 2017, 182 L.Ed.2d 922 (2012). See Holder v. Pimentel-Ornelas, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2680, 183 L.Ed.2d 42 (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Because Mercado-Zazueta is no longer valid precedent on the issue of imputation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, see Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam), we now reject Pimentel-Ornelas’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 Pimentel-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)(l) does not apply to five-year requirement of § 1229b(a)(l)).

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