James Curioso, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Ap *279 peals (“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 his remaining in this country outweigh the adverse factors. Because 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. 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 witnesses, the IJ (1) violated In re C-VT-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7, 11 (BIA 1998), by not allowing evidence attesting to Curio-so’s good character and (2) violated Curio-so’s due process rights. We review questions of law and due process challenges de novo. Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 2006); 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 substantial prejudice with respect to his due process claim. See An-war, 116 F.3d at 144.

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