
    Darniel MENDEZ VILLAREAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73403.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
    Daniel Edward Chavez, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Daniel E. Chavez, Peta-luma, CA, for Petitioner.
    U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Im-ran Raza Zaidi, Trial, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darniel Mendez Villareal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings of the IJ, Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), and we review de novo due process claims, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez Villareal provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, thereby rendering him unable to establish the requisite good moral character required for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(l)(B); see also Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266. Mendez Villareal’s contention that the IJ misinterpreted the law is not persuasive.

Contrary to Mendez Villareal’s contentions that he explained his inconsistent testimony and that he retracted the statements in a timely manner, the record does not compel a contrary result. See Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.2003). It follows that the denial of Mendez Villareal’s application on this basis did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     