Romo
Romo v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Pablo Romo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Romo’s contention that the agency deprived him of due process by failing to properly consider his serious health issues does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”)
We reject Romo’s contention that the IJ violated due process by taking judicial notice of the availability of asthma treatments in Mexico because Romo has failed to show the IJ erred in taking judicial notice of these facts that were not in dispute among the parties. See Lata v.…