Case Name: Justa Alejandra VASQUEZ ARELLANES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-01
Citations: 368 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 05-76399
Parties: Justa Alejandra VASQUEZ ARELLANES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 785–785

Head Matter:
Justa Alejandra VASQUEZ ARELLANES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76399.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 1, 2010.
Daphna Mendelson, Esquire, Mendelson & Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Justa Alejandra Vasquez Arellanes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Vasquez Arellanes provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, thereby rendering her unable to establish the requisite good moral character for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(l)(B); see also Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266.
Vasquez Arellanes' remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.