
    Jose ESPINOZA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71865
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Diana M. Bailey, Attorney, Law Office of Diana M. Bailey, Portland, OR, Joseph Austen Lear, Bailey Immigration, PC, Portland, OR, for Petitioner
    Lauren Fascett, 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: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Espinoza-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal based on the discretionary determination under the catch-all provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) that Espinoza-Garcia lacked good moral character. See Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005) (good moral character determination only reviewable if it is based on a per se exclusion category listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(1)-(9)), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009).

Because the good moral character determination is dispositive, we do not address Espinoza-Garcia’s contentions regarding the IJ’s credibility finding or his eligibility for the remaining requirements for cancellation of removal.

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