Jose Maria Robledo Meza v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARIA ROBLEDO MEZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72251
Agency No. A037-732-564
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Maria Robledo Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584
FILED
NOV 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72251 2
F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of relief
under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(c) (repealed 1996). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez v.
Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007).
Robledo Meza’s contention that the IJ refused to allow Robledo Meza and
his witnesses to testify is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).
Robledo Meza’s substantive due process claim fails because he has not
alleged the precise terms of any promise made to him by the government. See
Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --