22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T414,ORDER The government’s petition for panel rehearing is granted. The memorandum disposition filed on June 9, 2011, is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition is filed concurrently with this order. MEMORANDUM Abraham Mendiola-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order pretermi-ting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law, Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in determining that Mendiola-Sanchez may not impute his father’s lawful permanent residence for purposes of meeting the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1) — (2). See Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T450,

ORDER

The government’s petition for panel rehearing is granted.

The memorandum disposition filed on June 9, 2011, is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition is filed concurrently with this order.

MEMORANDUM

Abraham Mendiola-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order pretermi-ting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law, Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in determining that Mendiola-Sanchez may not impute his father’s lawful permanent residence for purposes of meeting the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1) — (2). See Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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