of the August 2003 order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. In January 2004, Sepulveda filed a second petition seeking review of the December 2003 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the August 2003 order. The Government has moved to dismiss both petitions, arguing that because Sepulveda’s motions to reopen and reconsider are “grounded on assertions of entitlement to relief under [8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b and 1255],” this Court is' barred from reviewing the orders denying such motions under '8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). DISCUSSION Section 1252(a)(2)(B) of Title 8 of the United States Code, as a h Cir.2003) (finding that a nondiscretionary determination regarding eligibility for adjustment of status was reviewable); Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 497-98 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, in his July 1999 oral decision, the IJ
holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina  212c 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 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 holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute 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