& N. Dec. 479, 480 (BIA 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 690 (BIA 2012). Petitioners also apparently ask this court to direct the DHS to engage in mediation with them, which is in essence a request to order the DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion. But the DHS has sole authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases and we lack jurisdiction over those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(g); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 485 n. 9, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (“Section 1252(g) was directed against a particular evil: attempts to impose judicial constraints upon prosecutorial discretion.”); Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners also assert that Ms. Ramos-Rauda
holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court holding that district court abused discretion by denying review where over thirty appeal panels had heard appeals on the issue and issued conflicting decisions holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of the bia refusing to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte holding that this court lacks jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the supreme court of the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands which were not completed before may 1 2004 holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions