
    Carlos E. BENAVIDES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73545.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew Allan Spur-lock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos E. Benavides, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. 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.Sd 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 Benavides gave false testimony regarding his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous for the purpose of obtaining a favorable exercise of discretion and is therefore statutorily preeluded from demonstrating good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001). Benavides’s claim that the agency failed to consider the cumulative effect of the testimony is not supported by the record.

The agency’s determination that Bena-vides did not timely recant is also supported by substantial evidence, where Be-navides failed to attempt to correct his previous testimony until after he was confronted by the IJ and government counsel. See Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir.2010) (where an applicant made the retraction only after being confronted with evidence of his misrepresentation, the applicant cannot take advantage of the timely recantation doctrine). Contrary to Benavides’s contention, the BIA applied the correct standard regarding recantation.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Bena-vides’s contention that his admissions should have been excluded because of the form of the questions asked by his prior counsel. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

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.
     