a removal order was pending and returned within ten years without the Attorney General’s consent; and he had presented false documents to immigration authorities during an earlier application for asylum. Olalde, who has not even challenged the second of those reasons, does not argue that either reason for deeming his application hopeless — and therefore denying him a continuance — was inconsistent with § 1255. And, indeed, both reasons are consistent with § 1255, as they are statutorily-based reasons that Olalde was inadmissible and thus ineligible to adjust his status. See Subhan, 383 F.3d at 593-94; Singh, 413 F.3d at 160. Thus, because the IJ denied Olalde’s motion to continue for reasons consistent with § 1255, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial. Ali, 502 F.3d at 664-66 (<HOLDING>); Pede, 442 F.3d at 571 (upholding denial of
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 the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending 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 this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter