Case Name: Francisco Javier BARRAZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 09-70859
Parties: Francisco Javier BARRAZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Francisco Javier BARRAZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70859.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
Francisco Javier Barraza-Gomez, Merced, CA, pro se.
Philippe Dwelshauvers, Esquire, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Do Kurlan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Edward C. Durant, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Francisco Javier Barraza-Gomez, 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") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Barraza-Gomez is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), and that he gave false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, precluding him from demonstrating good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.