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

A: 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
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice
A.