
    Humberto BECERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75122.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
    Cecily Baskir, Chevy Chase, MD, Doug Keller, Appellate Litigation Program, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
    Steven Frank Day, Esquire, OIL, 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: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Humberto Becerra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.2009), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA rejected Becerra’s contention that he was entitled to impute his mother’s admission as a lawful permanent resident in order to satisfy the seven-year period of continuous residence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2). However, the BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in Mercado-Zazueta, 580 F.3d at 1113-16, in which we recognized the ongoing validity of Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.2005) (a parent’s admission for permanent residence is imputed to unemancipated minor children residing with the parent for the purpose of satisfying the required period of continuous residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2)). We therefore remand to the BIA to reconsider Becerra’s appeal.

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