
    Juan Carlos SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73040
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Eduardo A. Paredes, Attorney, Law Office of Eduardo A. Paredes, Los Angeles, OA, for Petitioner
    Lauren Fascett, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Sanchez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of adjustment of status, where Sanchez-Ramirez’s testimony established that he made a false claim of United States citizenship to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to procure a driver’s license and is therefore inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), 1265(1), 1229a(c)(2)(A); Valadez-Munoz, 623 F.3d at 1308-09 (use of United States birth certificate to erroneously obtain a benefit constitutes a false claim of United States citizenship); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168 (2d Cir. 2007) (“so long as there is a basis in the evidence for a challenged inference, we do not question whether a different inference was available or more likely.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     