to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.”); United States v. Ng, 699 F.2d 63, 71 (2d Cir.1983) (concluding that a “policy [that] is merely an internal guideline for exercise of prosecutorial discretion [is] not subject to judicial review,” and emphasizing that the policy “is not a statute or regulation; nor is it constitutionally mandated”); see also United States v. Craveiro, 907 F.2d 260, 264 (1st Cir.1990) (“[T]he internal guidelines of a federal agency, that are not mandated by statute or the constitution, do not confer substantive rights on any party.”); cf. Firstland Int’l, Inc. v. INS, 377 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Montilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 166 (2d
holding moot appeal from revocation of visa petition where immigrant subsequently obtained lpr status holding that the beneficiary of a form 1130 visa petition did not have standing to challenge a denied petition holding no abuse of discretion where ij denied aliens request for continuance because alien had no immigrant visa available and it was unlikely attorney general would exercise discretion to permit excludable alien to stay holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding that the ins was deprived of any discretion to revoke approval of an immigrant visa petition when it failed to follow statutorilymandated notice requirement