
    Gregorio Santiago SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71307
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    
      James B. Rudolph, Esquire, Attorney, Rudolph, Baker & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregorio Santiago Santiago, 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 cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Santiago Santiago was statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character required for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, where substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he did not sufficiently establish that his periods of incarceration did not exceed 180 days. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(7), 1229b(b)(l)(B), 1229c(b)(l)(B).

We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time with Santiago Santiago’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).

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