Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): withdrawal of these claims”). Having recognized in our own jurisprudence that voluntary departures are implied agreements that in appropriate circumstances may weigh against granting further relief to aliens, we cannot fault the BIA for doing likewise here, where Medina-Morales bargained for voluntary departure in lieu of full adjudication. III. The Stepparent-Stepchild Relationship This conclusion does not end our analysis, however. Section 1252(a)(2)(B) does not purport to withdraw our jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary aspects of the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. For example, we have jurisdiction to review de novo a BIA decision that is contrary to law and will grant an alien’s petition in such a case. See Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832, 845-48 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the BIA’s reliance on .the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review (B) holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings (C) holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute (D) holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling (E) holding that we had jurisdiction and granting aliens petition where the bia unlawfully relied on the nonviability of the aliens marriage in denying her application for adjustment of status
Output (English): holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling