*1 Before: D.W. NELSON, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Aguirre (“Aguirre”) appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we AFFIRM .
*2 With respect to the only certified issue on appeal – whether the trial court’s denial of Aguirre’s motion for a new trial violated his due process rights – we note it does not appear this claim was fairly presented to the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court and may therefore implicate exhaustion concerns. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), we may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits “when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim.” Cassett v. Stewart , 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005). Aguirre has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial violated his due process rights or otherwise prevented him from presenting a complete defense.
The district court did not certify Aguirre’s remaining claims and we therefore construe them as a motion to broaden the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e). We deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir.1999) (per curium) (explaining that broadening a certificate of appealability requires a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).
AFFIRMED.
2
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).