Dinh Xuan Vu petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Ap *334 peals (BIA), which denied his request for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Vu argues that the immigration judge (IJ) erred when he precluded any witnesses other than Vu from testifying on Vu’s behalf and that this error violated Vu’s due process right to fundamental fairness.

This court does not have to determine whether the IJ erred because there was substantial evidence in the record before the BIA to support the BIA’s conclusion that Vu’s positive equities were outweighed by his negative attributes. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Vu is not entitled to relief since he is unable to establish that any error made his hearing fundamentally unfair, might have led to the denial of justice, or caused him substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997); Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir. 1993).

Vu also argues the IJ mistakenly determined that Vu’s prior § 212(c) waiver made him ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver now. The IJ did not make such a determination; he found that Vu did not deserve another opportunity to remain in the country. Accordingly, Vu’s petition for review is DENIED.