¶1 Raymond Nazien, a native of Haiti, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Nazien also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand for consideration of new evidence to support his claim that he is a citizen of the United States.
¶2 This court does not have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of an alien who is removable for being convicted of certain criminal offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). This court does have “jurisdiction to review jurisdictional facts and determine the proper scope of its own jurisdiction.” Flores-Garza v. INS, 328 F.3d 797, 802 (5th Cir.2003).
¶3 Nazien does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is removable for being convicted of a criminal offense. Nazien argues that the BIA erred in finding that he was not a citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1433. As the BIA found, the record contains no evidence that Nazien’s father filed an application seeking to make Nazien a citizen after Nazien’s father was naturalized in 1973. There is no substantial issue of fact that, if resolved in his favor, would show that Nazien is not an alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order. See Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274, 277-78 (5th Cir.2001).
¶4 Nazien argues for the first time on appeal that he is a “national” of the Unites States because his parents intended that he become a citizen. Nazien’s failure to raise this claim before the BIA deprives this court of jurisdiction over the issue. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-453 (5th Cir.2001).
¶5 Nazien’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.