With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal, In re Skeete, No. A37 234 324 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2005) , aff'g No. A37-234-324 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 28, 2004), and denying a second motion to reopen proceedings, In re Skeete, No. A37-234-324 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2006) . We lack jurisdiction to review either (1) the BIA’s October 11, 2005 affirmance of the Id’s May 28, 2004 order or (2) the BIA’s January 17, 2006 denial of Skeete’s motion to reopen (which was denied based on the merits of the underlying application for cancellation of removal). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© (removing this Court’s jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under,” inter alia, the cancellation of removal statute); cf. Mariuta v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 361, 365 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We do, however, have jurisdiction to review

A: holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile
B: holding motion to reopen seeking adjustment of status constituted a withdrawal of the request for voluntary departure and the adjustment motion was therefore not barred based on failure to depart within the voluntary departure time allowed
C: holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending
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
D.