and 8 C.F.R. § 1241.8, which apply to returnee aliens, with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, which applies to aliens with final removal orders who have not yet left the United States, and argues that the differential treatment accorded these two classes of aliens denies due process and equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment. According to Wang, the rights to withholding of removal and to be free from persecution are fundamental; thus, the differential treatment of returnee aliens, versus aliens subject to deportation who have not yet left, is subject to strict scrutiny. First, to the extent that Wang argues that the BIA erred in refusing to sua sponte reopen her case, we lack jurisdiction to review its decision. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen. 525 F.3d 1291, 1293-94 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). However, we retain jurisdiction to consider
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 holding that a petitioners failure to address the bias denial of a motion to reopen in the argument portion of his opening brief on appeal waived the issue holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority holding that a decision of the bia whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 cfr  10032a is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond the courts review  ie the court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias decision not to reopen