
    WING YAU WONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70828.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 6, 2012.
    Clarence K. Chan, Esquire, Stockton, CA, for Petitioner.
    Wing Yau Wong, Stockton, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erica Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wing Yau Wong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Wong’s conviction under California Penal Code § 484/487(a) constituted an aggravated felony theft offense where the record of conviction established that Wong pled guilty to grand theft of personal property. See id. at 1040-41 (relying on a complaint and an abstract of judgment, both of which specified that the offense involved personal property, to conclude that the petitioner’s conviction under § 487(a) qualified as a theft offense). Accordingly, Wong is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Wong’s unexhausted challenge to the IJ’s finding that he committed two or more crimes involving moral turpitude for which he is removable. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Wong failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his or her opening brief).

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