Opinion ID: 147253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A jurisdictional matter

Text: At the outset, the government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's order denying Chi's motion to reopen for status adjustment. Citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), the government starts by noting that no court has jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of an adjustment of status application. Building on that foundation, the government stresses that the BIA denied Chi's motion to reopen because he did not deserve an affirmative exercise of discretion necessary for status adjustment relief. From this, the government reasons that if we cannot review a decision denying status adjustment, then we cannot review a decision denying a motion to reopen premised on a ruling that an alien is not ultimately entitled to status adjustment relief. The Supreme Court, however, has reserved for future decision whether review of a reopening denial would be precluded if the court would lack jurisdiction over the alien's underlying claim for relief. Kucana v. Holder, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 827, 839 n. 17, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010). Given that courts can bypass a close jurisdictional question if the merits ruling is foreordained and does not create new precedent, see Seale v. INS, 323 F.3d 150, 152 (1st Cir.2003), we leave the issue for another day and turn to the merits.