
    SEALED PETITIONER, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 17-60512 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Lance Edward Curtright, Esq., De Mott McChesney Curtright & Armendariz, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner
    Sarah Abigail Byrd, Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

We lack jurisdiction to consider the two issues Petitioner raises on appeal. First, he contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to apply the “clearly erroneous” standard of review and instead “rejected the [immigration judge’s] record-based findings in favor of [the Board’s] own assessment of the evidence.” But this issue is outside our jurisdiction because Petitioner never presented it to the Board. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319-21 (5th Cir. 2009), Second, Petitioner contends that the Board made erroneous factual findings. But he is removable for having committed crimes covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i), depriving us of jurisdiction to review issues of fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C),(D). Although Petitioner is correct that that we may review whether the facts found are legally sufficient to warrant relief, see, e.g., Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2009); Matter of Z-Z-O, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 590-91 (BIA 2015), that is not the nature of his appeal. Rather, he complains that he “presented substantial, credible, and unchallenged evidence” contradicting the Board’s findings. That is squarely an issue of fact. See, e.g., Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2012); Morka v. Holder, 554 Fed. Appx. 342, 343 (5th Cir. 2014).

It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s opposed motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     