Curioso v. Gonzales

Filing 920070329

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 06-60426 Summary Calendar March 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

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, petitions 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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

No. 06-60426 -2his remaining in this country outweigh the adverse factors. Be-

cause Curioso was found to be removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), we lack jurisdiction to consider this argument. (a)(2)(C). Curioso also contends that when, after hearing testimony from Curioso and his wife, the IJ refused to hear from any other witnesses, 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 character and (2) violated Curioso's due process rights. We review questions of law and due process challenges de novo. Mai v. Gonzales, See id. § 1252-

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 subSee

stantial prejudice with respect to his due process claim. Anwar, 116 F.3d at 144.

The petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED IN PART.