then the absence of any protective procedures cannot be a violation of procedural due process. See Diaz-Zaldierna, at 1120; Caballero v. Caplinger, 914 F.Supp. 1374,1378 (E.D.La.1996) (“if there is no right, the absence of any protective procedures is immaterial”). As Respondent correctly argues, Petitioner can only be entitled to a meaningful procedure, the process that is due, if he first shows the deprivation of a protected constitutional interest. As demonstrated, Petitioner has no statutory or constitutional right to release within the United States while his removal proceedings are pending. The process itself — an individualized bond hearing — cannot be the protected interest. See Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 1249 n. 2, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249-50, 103
holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim holding claim is not cognizable holding claim is cognizable holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal