General or the Secretary, of Homeland Security.... 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues that the discretion given to the Attorney General to deny or grant an adjustment application made pursuant to the CAA is not given pursuant to “this subchapter” because, according to plaintiff, “this subchapter” refers only to the INA, not the CAA. While no reported decision from any court appears to have squarely addressed the issue, the Supreme Court recently noted, in resolving a different issue, that the reference in section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to (“this subchapter” is to “Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, of the United States Code, codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1381 and titled ‘Immigration.’”). Kucana v. Holder, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 827, 832 n. 3, - L.Ed.2d - (2010) (<HOLDING>); see also Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
holding that statutes restricting judicial review of discretionary decisions do not preclude review of challenges to the constitutionality of ins regulations but holding that petitioners failure to receive discretionary relief does not rise to a constitutionally protected interest holding that sjeetion 1252a2bii clearly precludes judicial review of decisions under section 1186ac4 because the statute specifies that those decisions are purely discretionary holding that mandatory military procedures and regulations cannot be ignored by the agencies themselves even where discretionary decisions are involved holding that section 1252a2bii barred jurisdiction of decisions specified by statute as discretionary but did not bar decisions specified by regulation as discretionary holding that  1252a2bii precludes  review of discretionary decisions  in only the specific circumstances specified in the statute itself