re Smriko held that "[t]he respondent’s argument that the Attorney General’s termination of refugee status is a precondition to removal is directly refuted by the statute, the promulgating regulation, and the Attorney General’s explanation of the refugee adjustment process in [In re ] Jean." Id. at 840. 39 . She points us to In re D-K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 761 (BIA 2012); In re H-N-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1039 (BIA 1999) (en banc); In re Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (B.I.A.2002). She also tries to analogize her case to In re Rainford, 20 I. & N. Dec. 598 (BIA 1992) and In re Gabryelsky, 20 I. & N. Dec. 750 (BIA 1993). 40 . 24 I. & N. Dec. at 324-25. 41 . Id. at 330. 42 . Id. 43 . 516 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.2008). 44 . Id. at 252-53. 45 . Van v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 395 Fed.Appx. 889, 891-92 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 46 . Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683, 692
holding that an alien who adjusted status from refugee to lawful permanent resident no longer qualified as a refugee and was thus no longer eligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility in connection with an adjustment of status under  209 holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under  212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status holding that refugees who have already acquired lpr status are ineligible for a  209c waiver in light of the language in that adjustment of status can be granted to an alien who has not acquired permanent resident status holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident