v. Reno, 205 F.3d 194, 198 (5th Cir.2000). 6 . The transitional rules applied between the time Congress passed IIRIRA and April 1, 1997. The relevant transitional provision provided that "there shall be no appeal of any discretionary decision” under INA § 245. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E). 7 . A majority of jurisdictions that have decided this issue have held that INA § 242(a)(2)(b)(i) precludes judicial review of a [8 U.S.C.] § 1255 denial of adjustment of status. See e.g. Van Dinh v. Reno, 197 F.3d 427, 432 (10th Cir.1999); Amoakowaa v. Reno, 94 F.Supp.2d 903 (N.D.Ill.2000); Paunescu et al. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 76 F.Supp.2d 896, 900 (N.D.Ill.1999); Diallo v. Reno, 61 F.Supp.2d 1361, 1367 (N.D.Ga.1999); but see Shanti v. Reno, 36 F.Supp.2d 1151, 1158 (D.Minn.1999)(<HOLDING>). 8 . The Ninth Circuit, however, recently held
holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that ina  242 confined in scope to orders of removal recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail