
    Rigoberto MENDOZA-PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2015.
    Peter James Musser, A Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Ann M. Wel-haf, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, 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

Rigoberto Mendoza-Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order' dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence determinations regarding good moral character. Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendoza-Palacios is statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal, where he gave false testimony under oath in immigration court with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(l)(B); Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Palaeios’s unexhausted contention that he timely recanted his false testimony. Id at 1266-67 (“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.
     