The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed June 10, 2010.
Sarah J.M. Jones, Esquire, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Shahrzad Baghai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A072-404-012.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Martha Angelica Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence a finding of statutory ineligibility for cancellation of removal based on a lack of good moral character, Moron v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), and for clear error whether or not a person has the subjective intent to deceive in order to obtain immigration benefits, United States v. Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Sanchez gave false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) (applicant who has given false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit is ineligible for relief that requires a showing of good moral character). Sanchez testified to the IJ and the asylum officer that she had not been arrested or convicted, despite her 1991 arrest and conviction for falsely claiming United States citizenship and attempted illegal reentry. See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (false testimony to asylum officer established lack of good moral character). The IJ's account of the evidence was plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. See Hovsepian, 422 F.3d at 885-86.