or paroled into the United States is required to adjust status to that of a legal permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). 3 . On appeal, the BIA held a remand to the IJ was not necessary because a newly enacted regulation clarified that, as an arriving alien, Ordonez-Garay must pursue any application for adjustment of status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS”), not the IJ. See Eligibility of Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings to Apply for Adjustment of Status and Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Applications for Adjustment of Status, 71 Fed.Reg. 27585-592 (May 12, 2006) (codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1.1, 245.1, 245.2, 1001.1, 1245.1, 1245.2). This conclusion, however, is contrary to our recent holding in Kalilu v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 777, 780 (9th Cir.2008)
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 bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it 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 bia may in its discretion grant a motion to continue or reopen to allow an alien to pursue adjustment of status before the uscis