concludes the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) is the only authority cited by the Plaintiff which could provide jurisdiction. See R. 31, PagelD#: 566. The Administrative Procedure Act provides, in relevant part: Agency action made renewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 704. The APA does not apply when “statutes preclude judicial review” or when “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). The Magistrate Judge correctly observes that “Jama does not identify any statute that expressly makes the USCIS’s actions he challenges reviewable in District Court,” and as such, this Court does not have j nho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 202 (3rd Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Judicial review of orders of removal is
holding agency action is final where there are no deportation proceedings pending in which the decision might be reopened or challenged holding that section 1429 does not divest district court of jurisdiction when deportation proceedings are pending holding that epa action initiating permitting proceedings was not final agency action holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to review denied applications when deportation proceedings are pending holding that apa  702s waiver of sovereign immunity applies regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes final agency action 