for cancellation of removal. We recognize that we generally do not have jurisdiction to review “any ... decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security-” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Notwithstanding limitations on jurisdiction contained in § 1252(a)(2)(B)-(C), we are not precluded from reviewing constitutional claims or questions of law raised in a petition for review. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Savoury, 449 F.3d at 1311-12 (<HOLDING>). Applying the case law here, we conclude that
holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute holding that aliens who pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial  are barred from seeking  212c relief holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina  212c holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review aliens eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c