
    Jose Maria ROBLEDO MEZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72251.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2010.
    Raymond Reza Bolourtchi, Esquire, Cofman & Bolourtchi LLC, Saint Louis, MO, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996).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.
     