Case Name: Dora Erika GUTIERREZ, aka Dora Erika Pena-Montes, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 556
Docket Number: No. 05-74259
Parties: Dora Erika GUTIERREZ, aka Dora Erika Pena-Montes, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 556–557

Head Matter:
Dora Erika GUTIERREZ, aka Dora Erika Pena-Montes, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74259.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 24, 2007.
David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dora Erika Gutierrez, 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. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Gutierrez provided false testimony with the intent to deceive for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, which barred her from possessing the good moral character required to be eligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6); Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 781-82, 108 S.Ct. 1587, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988); Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of voluntary departure, and therefore dismiss the petition to the extent it challenges that determination. See Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.