has been unreasonably delayed. See Koren v. Chertoff, No. 3:07-cv-157 (PCD), 2007 WL 1431948, at *3-4 (D.Conn. May 14, 2007); Tang v. Chertoff, 493 F.Supp.2d 148, 151-54 (D.Mass.2007); Linville v. Barrows, 489 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1282 (W.D.Okla.2007); Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 WL 626116, at *3 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 23, 2007) (a determination that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review of the pace at which CIS processed applications “would amount to a grant of permission for inaction, and a purposeful disregard of the potential for abuse thereof, on immigration matters.”); Huang v. Gonzales, No. C07-0096RSM, 2007 WL 1302555, at *3-4 (W.D.Wash. May 2, 2007); Kim v. Ashcroft, 340 F.Supp.2d 384, 390-91 (S.D.N.Y.2004); but see Safadi v. Howard, 466 F.Supp.2d 696, 697-98 (E.D.Va.2006) (<HOLDING>); Sharif v. Chertoff, 497 F.Supp.2d 928
holding the bia may in its discretion grant a motion to continue or reopen to allow an alien to pursue adjustment of status before the uscis holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying aliens attempt to have proceedings before the board continued until uscis had an opportunity to adjudicate his adjustment application because a decision by the uscis would never return to the immigration courts and would never be reviewed by the bia 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 we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter holding that the discretionary action precluded from judicial review includes the pace at which uscis processes an adjustment of status application