Case Name: Claudia SEGURA-RERRAZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 09-73490
Parties: Claudia SEGURA-RERRAZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
Claudia SEGURA-RERRAZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73490.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 5, 2011.
Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
OIL, Margot Nadel, Trial, 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: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Claudia Segura-Rerraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Segura-Rerraza provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, thereby rendering her unable to establish the requisite good moral character required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(l)(B); see also Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266. Segura-Rerraza's identification of an alternative interpretation of portions of her testimony is not sufficient to establish that the record compels reversal of the agency's determination. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (noting that "[t]o reverse the [agency] finding we must find that the evidence not only suppoRs that conclusion but compels it") (emphasis in original).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.