
    HAM DO KIM; Jinok Kim; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72864.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
    Alex C. Park, Esquire, Law Offices of Alex C. Park, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ham Do Kim, his wife Jinok Kim, and two of their children, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, and review de novo questions of law. Kim v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding of removability by clear and convincing evidence. See id. at 1103.

The agency did not err in concluding that petitioners were ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(k) where they never possessed immigrant visas. See Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213, 1219 (9th Cir.2010) (to be eligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(k) an alien must possess an immigrant visa).

Petitioners’ contention that the government should be equitably estopped from ordering their 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).

Petitioners’ remaining contention is not persuasive.

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