than file a request for an enlargement of time, petitioner’s counsel simply elected to file nothing and instead appeared at oral argument to present petitioner's position orally. 14 . 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also id. § 245.2(a) ("USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application under 8 CFR 1245.2(a)(1)”); Rotimi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 133, 134 n. 2 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) ("Once an order to show cause had been issued in Rotimi's case, the [immigration judge] acquired exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate Rotimi’s application for adjustment of status in deportation proceedings.”); Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191, 194 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Wellington v. INS, 108 F.3d 631, 635 (5th
holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings recognizing that the attorney general has  vested immigration judges with exclusive jurisdiction over applications for adjustment of status in cases of deportation or removal 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 that adjustment boards have exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes under rla