by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, § 440(a), 110 Stat. 1241 (1996), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRI-RA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996), provides in relevant part that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(f), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Sepulveda seeks two forms of discretionary relief: cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(l)(B)(i). Section 1229b(b) enables the Attorney General to cancel the .removal of any alien who is inadmissible or removable if the alien: (1) has been phys 2004) (<HOLDING>); Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 845-47
holding that an order denying a petitioners motion to reopen proceedings so that he could apply for adjustment of status was not a judgment regarding the granting of relief and was thus reviewable holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute holding that denying a petitioners motion to reopen when he arrived 15 to 20 minutes late was an abuse of discretion 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 motion to reopen seeking adjustment of status constituted a withdrawal of the request for voluntary departure and the adjustment motion was therefore not barred based on failure to depart within the voluntary departure time allowed