Case Name: Sergio Martin REYNAGA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 06-72650
Parties: Sergio Martin REYNAGA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 601–601

Head Matter:
Sergio Martin REYNAGA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72650.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Maribel Herrera, Considine, Sorensen & Trujillo, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sergio Martin Reynaga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.
During direct examination, Reynaga testified that his wife attempted to commit suicide due to his immigration problems, and later on cross examination, he admitted that this testimony was false. Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Reynaga did not timely or voluntarily recant the false testimony. See Matter of Namio, 14 I. & N. Dec. 412, 414 (BIA 1973). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that Reynaga provided false testimony with the intent to deceive for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. Reynaga was therefore precluded from showing good moral character for cancellation of removal purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6); see e.g., Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.