The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 1, 2010.
Xavier Gonzales, Xavier Gonzales, Attorney at Law, P.C., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Aimee J. Frederickson, Trial, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A099-288-811.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Luis Gabriel Oropeza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings and de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Oropeza is inadmissible because the record indicates he made a false claim to United States citizenship to gain entry to the United States on April 2, 2000. See Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000) (false claim to United States citizenship is a "non-waivable ground of inadmissibility" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)); see also Llanos-Senarillos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165-66 (9th Cir. 1949) (withdrawal of false testimony after petitioner knows it will not deceive is not a voluntary and timely recantation). Oropeza is therefore ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2) (applicant for adjustment of status must be admissible to the United States).