
    Marco Aurelio CASTELLANOS-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74857.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Richard La Paglia, Esquire, Law Office of Richard La Paglia, Eloy, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Saul Greenstein, Esquire, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Regan Hildebrand, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco Aurelio Castellanos-Garda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Because the BIA decided this case without the benefit of our decision in Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1113-1116 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing the ongoing validity of Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1029 (9th Cir.2005) (a parent’s admission for permanent resident status is imputed to the parent’s unemanci-pated minor children residing with the parent for the purpose of satisfying the seven-years of continuous residence “after having been admitted in any status”)), we remand to the BIA to allow it to reconsider Castellanos-Garcia’s appeal. See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Castellanos-Garcia’s equal protection challenge.

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