Case Name: Jose Refugio Andrade OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 315 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 04-70961
Parties: Jose Refugio Andrade OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Jose Refugio Andrade OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70961.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Jose Refugio Andrade Ochoa, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Maria Andrade, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., Jennifer Lightbody, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Refugio Andrade Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 factual determinations for substantial evidence, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Andrade Ochoa lacks good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) because he denied that he had more than one conviction before an asylum officer. See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.