
    Guillermo GARCIA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70572.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2014.
    Michael B. Anderson, Mendocino, CA, for Petitioner.
    Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, Christina Bechak Parascan-dola, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, 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

Guillermo Garcia-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 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 factual determinations. Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia-Garcia failed to demonstrate the good moral character necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal because, under our binding precedent, his admission to having paid money to smuggle his wife into the United States in 2008 prevents him from demonstrating good moral character. See Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (“[Ajlien smugglers are one of the classes of persons that cannot be found to have good moral character for the purposes of cancellation of removal....”). Garcia-Garcia has identified no basis for revisiting this precedent at this time. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that a three judge panel “may reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent” only “where the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of voluntary departure. See Go mez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     