to the USCIS. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1). Moreover, the jurisdictional regulation applicable to Zheng, 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1), prevents the immigration courts from ever having jurisdiction over Zheng’s adjustment application. Therefore, the BIA could not have remanded to the IJ so that Zheng could seek adjournment or termination of her proceedings in order to apply to the USCIS for adjustment of status. The BIA also could not have sent the case to the USCIS be cannot it cannot remand proceedings to the US-CIS when an appeal is taken from an IJ’s decision. In addition, the BIA could not have remanded the case to the USCIS because a denial by the USCIS would never fall within the BIA’s jurisdiction. See Scheerer v. Attorney General (“Scheerer II”), 513 F.3d 1244, 1254 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, if the BIA remanded to 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 bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected holding that the discretionary action precluded from judicial review includes the pace at which uscis processes an adjustment of status application 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 that we had jurisdiction and granting aliens petition where the bia unlawfully relied on the nonviability of the aliens marriage in denying her application for adjustment of status