
    WOONG SOON JANG; Hee Soon Jang, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 10, 2011.
    Alex C. Park, Esquire, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioners.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Lindsay Williams Zimliki, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Woong Soon Jang and Hee Soon Jang, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We dismiss the petition for review as it applies to Woong Soon Jang in light of the BIA’s December 7, 2010, order reopening and terminating his removal proceedings. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (order).

We reject Hee Soon Jang’s contention that the government failed to establish his removability by clear and convincing evidence, because he conceded removability. See Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2008) (“[Wjhere the alien concedes removability, the government’s burden in this regard is satisfied.” (citation and quotation omitted)).

Hee Soon Jang’s contention that the government should be equitably estopped from ordering his removal is unavailing. See Sulit v. Schiltgen, 213 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.2000) (“[Ejstoppel against the government is unavailable where petitioners have not lost any rights to which they were entitled.”); cf. Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1165-68 (9th Cir.2005).

Hee Soon Jang’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     