retain jurisdiction to review due process challenges,” but “[a] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.” Saloum v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 437 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (internal quotations omitted). Anderson has not raised a colorable constitutional claim, as he is simply re-characterizing an allegation that the IJ abused his discretion as a constitutional issue. Moreover, even if colorable, Anderson’s claim fails. Anderson’s right to due process was not violated as the IJ continued proceedings for over a month in order to allow him an opportunity to pursue his case. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 104-05 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Anderson argues that the BIA based
holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice holding that an alien is entitled to the fifth amendment guarantee of due process which is satisfied by a full and fair hearing