
    Esaun TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72222.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 18, 2014.
    John David Mansfield, Esquire, The Mansfield Law Group, Murrieta, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Esaun Torres, 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 cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence determinations regarding good moral character. Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Torres is statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal because he knowingly gave false testimony under oath at his asylum interview in 2007 with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(l)(B); Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (concluding that a petitioner who had made false statements under oath during an asylum interview had given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits and could therefore not establish good moral character, even though she had later withdrawn her asylum application and had admitted to the immigration judge that she had lied during the interview).

We lack jurisdiction to review Torres’s remaining, unexhausted contentions. See Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1267 (“Failure to raise an argument before the BIA deprives this court of jurisdiction.”).

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