With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". would proceed. As petitioners acknowledge, their case had been pending for several years. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in denying a further continuance. Therefore, we deny review on.this ground. Petitioners also assert error in the BIA’s refusal to close the case administratively to allow the DHS to exercise prose-cutorial discretion. The BIA held that it did not have jurisdiction to instruct the DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion. We review this legal determination de novo, Dallakoti v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1264, 1267 (10th Cir.2010) (‘We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo.... ”), and agree that the agency lacked jurisdiction to direct the DHS to exercise prosecu-torial discretion, see Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Matter of Bahta, 22 I. & N. Dec.

A: holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of the bia refusing to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte
B: holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte
C: holding that  1252a2bs ban on review of judgments regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions
D: holding that the ij and bia lack authority to review discretionary decisions regarding when and whether to initiate removal proceedings
D.