Manuel Noveron-Rodriguez filed a petition for review of the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the alternative purely discretion *435 ary determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that, even in the absence of a statutory bar, Noveron-Rod-riguez failed to show good moral character and, therefore, he was not entitled to cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Sung v. Keis-ler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). '

We have jurisdiction to review whether Noveron-Rodriguez is statutorily precluded from establishing good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) because he gave false testimony to the IJ in order to obtain an immigration benefit. See Gonzalez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 975, 977 (5th Cir. 2007). This determination is a question of law that we review de novo. See id. at 976.

Noveron-Rodriguez argues that the BIA’s finding that he testified falsely was based on statements in his written application and that, under Beltran-Resendez v. INS, 207 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir. 2000), the written statements do not constitute false testimony. This case is distinguishable from Beltran-Resendez because Noveron-Rodriguez testified falsely under oath that the information in his cancellation of removal application was correct. See Gonzalez-Maldonado, 487 F.3d at 977 & n. 3.

Noveron-Rodriguez argues that the BIA failed to follow its own precedent in Matter of M — , 9 I. & N. Dec. 118 (BIA 1960), in which the alien was permitted to make a timely retraction of incorrect information. This case is distinguishable from Matter of M— because Noveron-Rodri-guez did not correct his false statements during the same hearing at which they were made; he corrected them approximately seven months later at the next hearing. He corrected some of his statements only after cross-examination by the Department of Homeland Security and the IJ, and he did not provide a sufficient explanation for testifying falsely. Although he acknowledged that he used a false Social Security number to obtain employment, his retraction was not voluntary because he had reason to believe that the IJ would discover his use of a false Social Security number on the tax returns he submitted in support of his application. See Matter of Namio, 14 I. & N. Dec. 412, 414 (B.I.A. 1973). For these reasons, he has not shown that the BIA erred in finding that he did not timely and voluntarily retract his false testimony.

PETITION DENIED.