Curioso v. Gonzales

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60426
Summary Calendar
JAMES ROEHL CURIOSO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A41 891 471
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Curioso, a native and citizen of the Philippines, peti-
tions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying
his application for discretionary cancellation of removal under
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Curioso argues that he should have been
granted cancellation of removal, because the factors favorable to

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60426
-2-
his remaining in this country outweigh the adverse factors. Be-
cause Curioso was found to be removable by reason of having commit-
ted a criminal offense covered in section 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), we
lack jurisdiction to consider this argument. See id. § 1252-
(a)(2)(C).
Curioso also contends that when, after hearing testimony from
Curioso and his wife, the IJ refused to hear from any other wit-
nesses, the IJ (1) violated In re C-V-T-, 22 I.& N. Dec. 7, 11 (BIA
1998), by not allowing evidence attesting to Curioso’s good charac-
ter and (2) violated Curioso’s due process rights. We review ques-
tions of law and due process challenges de novo. Mai v. Gonzales,
473 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 2005); Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144
(5th Cir. 1997).
Curioso has not demonstrated that, by limiting unnecessary
testimony after the IJ had already determined that Curioso lacked
good moral character, the IJ disregarded C-V-T-, 22 I. & N. Dec.
at 11. Curioso also has failed to make an initial showing of sub-
stantial prejudice with respect to his due process claim. See
Anwar, 116 F.3d at 144.
The petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jur-
isdiction and DENIED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --