
    Salvador BENITEZ-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70208.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Diana M. Bailey, Law Office of Diana M. Bailey, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    William Clark Minick, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Benitez-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Benitez-Pineda’s testimony concerning his trip to Canada was not credible because it was implausible and contradicted by the totality of the circumstances. See Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir.2009) (an adverse credibility determination should be based on the totality of the circumstances, including the inherent plausibility of the petitioner’s testimony).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Benitez-Pine-da was statutorily barred from establishing good moral character in order to qualify for cancellation of removal because he engaged in affirmative acts in support of a smuggling attempt. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229b(b)(l)(B); Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747-49 (9th Cir.2007) (alien smuggling finding was supported by substantial evidence where the record reflected that the petitioner provided “an affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement”).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Benitez-Pineda’s remaining contentions.

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