
    SOOK HEE JUNG, AKA Xianghua Shen, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73711
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 7, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed September 11, 2017
    Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Andrea Gevas, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FABER, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sook Hee Jung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jung did not meet her burden of demonstrating that she was “waved” into the United States at a port of entry and, therefore, “inspected and admitted” for the purpose of adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); Matter of Quilantan, 25 I & N Dec. 285, 286, 293 (BIA 2010). There were inconsistencies between Jung’s testimony and immigration documents submitted on her behalf. Jung did not explain those inconsistencies nor did she provide sufficient documentation to corroborate her testimony that her entry was procedurally regular for purposes of adjustment of status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jung’s unexhausted contentions that the IJ did not provide her sufficient notice and opportunity to produce corroborative evidence or to explain its unavailability and that the IJ failed to provide specific and cogent reasons for rejecting her explanations regarding the inconsistencies between her testimony and the documentary evidence. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     