
    Cesar Mendez ZOLANO, AKA Ubaldo Cabrera-Diaz, AKA Cesar Mendez-Zolano, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73099
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Cesar Mendez Zolano, Pro Se
    J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner
    Sabatino F. Leo, 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: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Mendez Zolano, 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 cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Ramos v. I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001), and review de novo questions of law, Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez Zolano is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a lack of good moral character where he provided false testimony under oath and did not recant until he had been in proceedings for more than two years. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6) (barring a finding of good moral character for any person who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit); 1229b(b)(l)(B); Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010) (“recantation must be voluntary and without delay” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

The BIA did not err in rejecting Mendez Zolano’s contention that his false testimony was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, where Mendez Zolano failed to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was not plain on the face of the record.

The agency did not violate due process in pretermitting without a further hearing Mendez Zolano’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure based on failure to show good moral character, where Mendez Zolano was afforded the opportunity to brief his eligibility, and has not established that he was prejudiced by the denial of further hearings in his case. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

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