
    Fredy Antonio Alas RECINOS; Lourdes E. Reyes Maldonado, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70459.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 4, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 26, 2013.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Lynn Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fredy Antonio Alas Reciño and Lourdes E. Reyes Maldonado, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Recinos’s application for special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Maldonado, Recinos’s spouse, is a derivative beneficiary of his application. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.61(a)(4), 1240.65(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition for review.

The IJ determined that Recinos could not establish “good moral character,” a statutory predicate for special rule cancellation, because he had testified falsely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). The IJ alternatively declined to grant relief on discretionary grounds. The BIA affirmed on both the statutory and discretionary grounds. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the alternative discretionary denial, and that denial disposes of petitioners’ claims, we must dismiss the petition for review relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006).

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