
    Manuel de Jesus MARTINEZ-ESCALERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70977.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2014.
    Filed Feb. 19, 2014.
    Maria Janossy, Law Offices of Maria Janossy, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel de Jesus Martinez-Escalera petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. The BIA rejected Martinez-Escalera’s argument that he could meet the seven-year residency requirement for cancellation of removal by imputing the residence of his United States citizen children. We deny the petition.

Martinez-Escalera attempts to rely on our decision in Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1029 (9th Cir.2005), in which we held that a parent’s admission for permanent residence status is imputed to the parent’s unemancipated minor child for purposes of satisfying the residency requirement for cancellation of removal. The Supreme Court abrogated Cuevas-Gaspar with Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2011, 2017, 182 L.Ed.2d 922 (2012) (holding that the BIA’s interpretation of the cancellation of removal statute as requiring an alien to satisfy the residency requirements on his own was reasonable). Id. We appreciate the efforts of counsel to distinguish Martinez Gutierrez, but those efforts ultimately fail.

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