With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding claim is not cognizable
B: holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim
C: holding claim is cognizable
D: holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim
B.