With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than file a request for an enlargement of time, petitioner’s counsel simply elected to file nothing and instead appeared at oral argument to present petitioner's position orally. 14 . 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also id. § 245.2(a) ("USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application under 8 CFR 1245.2(a)(1)”); Rotimi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 133, 134 n. 2 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) ("Once an order to show cause had been issued in Rotimi's case, the [immigration judge] acquired exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate Rotimi’s application for adjustment of status in deportation proceedings.”); Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191, 194 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Wellington v. INS, 108 F.3d 631, 635 (5th

A: holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending
B: recognizing that the attorney general has  vested immigration judges with exclusive jurisdiction over applications for adjustment of status in cases of deportation or removal
C: 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: 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
B.