Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998). However, we may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party, or ... rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.1998) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The APA provides judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. An adjustment of status decision is a final agency action when “there are no deportation proceedings pending in which the decision might be reopened or challenged.” Ibarra v. Swacina, 628 F.3d 1269, 1270 (11th Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted); see id. (<HOLDING>). Under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a
holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar 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 this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter