Case: 17-60512 Document: 00514243523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-60512 FILED
Summary Calendar November 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
SEALED PETITIONER,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A089 382 147
Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We lack jurisdiction to consider the two issues Petitioner raises on ap-
peal. First, he contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to apply
the “clearly erroneous” standard of review and instead “rejected the [immigra-
tion 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
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-60512 Document: 00514243523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2017
No. 17-60512
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 war-
rant 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 F. App’x 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.
2