
    Remberto Noe CHINCHILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70458.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 2, 2011.
    Jenny Tsai, Green & Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Remberto Noe Chinchilla, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chinchilla provided false testimony to an immigration officer for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and therefore is statutorily barred 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); see also Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1309 (9th Cir.2010) (doctrine of timely recantation is available to individuals who have a “momentary lapse”). Accordingly, he is ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(3).

Because Chinchilla is statutorily barred from demonstrating good moral character he is also ineligible for voluntary departure at the conclusion of proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(l)(B), and we therefore decline to remand for the BIA to consider his contention that the IJ erred in denying his application for voluntary departure.

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