22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T527,MEMORANDUM 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 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discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996).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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55e,

MEMORANDUM

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 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discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996).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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.