Benavidez

*879 MEMORANDUM **

Carl Benavidez appeals the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment and to reject his claim that he was denied due process in his administrative attempts to increase his workers’ compensation. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review directly the Department of Labor’s refusal to modify a claimant’s disability compensation. See 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b) (providing DOL’s decision “allowing or denying a payment” is “not subject to review ... by a court by mandamus or otherwise”); see also Staacke v. United States Sec’y of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 280-81 (9th Cir.1988); Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.1985). Notwithstanding this statutory bar, we have held there is jurisdiction to review a colorable constitutional claim that the agency’s procedures violated due process. See Staacke, 841 F.2d at 281 ; Rodrigues, 769 F.2d at 1347-48 .

We agree with the district court that Benavidez has not asserted a color-able constitutional claim. He complains he was not permitted to “appeal” the denials of his request for increased benefits, but those “denials” were merely statements of benefits and informational responses to his…