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 *2 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

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.