
    Andres CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71304.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 12, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2015.
    Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar, A Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Dawn S. Conrad, Trial, DOJ-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: GRABER, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Andres Cruz-Hernandez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s entry of a final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir.2014) (stating the standard of review). The BIA correctly pointed out that Petitioner’s testimony on important topics both was internally inconsistent and conflicted with his own declaration. See generally Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing inconsistent testimony and adverse credibility determinations).

2. Reviewing de novo, Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir.2011), we hold that the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress the Form 1-213. The admission of the Form was “fundamentally fair,” Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995), and Petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated — egregiously or otherwise.

3. We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2010).

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