Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Martinez Gutierrez: A Parent's Residence Is Not Imputed for LPR Cancellation

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 2, 2026

Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez resolved whether a child's eligibility for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1229b(a) can be established by imputing a parent's lawful status or continuous residence.

The respondents relied on their parents' histories

Each respondent entered or obtained lawful permanent residence after a parent had accumulated qualifying time. Standing alone, neither respondent satisfied every statutory period, so each argued that the parent's years should count toward the child's eligibility.

The statute speaks to the individual applicant

Section 1229b(a) requires the person seeking cancellation to have been an LPR for at least five years and to have resided continuously for seven years after a lawful admission. The text does not direct the agency to impute a parent's status or residence.

The BIA's no-imputation rule was reasonable

Applying the then-governing deference framework, the Court held that the Board permissibly required each applicant to meet the time requirements personally. The approach was consistent with statutory text and with Congress's use of express imputation rules elsewhere.

The Ninth Circuit judgments were reversed

The Court reversed decisions requiring imputation and remanded. Family history may still matter to other eligibility, discretionary, or hardship questions, but it does not replace the applicant's own statutory periods under this holding.

Key takeaways

• Calculate each statutory period using the applicant's own dates.
• Identify the lawful admission that starts the residence clock.
• Check stop-time and disqualifying-offense rules separately.
• Do not assume a parent's immigration history is automatically transferable.