a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy [is] available.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The Declaratory Judgment Act “does not, of itself, confer jurisdiction upon federal courts.” Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Res., Inc., 542 F.3d 859, 861-62 (11th Cir.2008). It is “an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2143, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he Act permits a party to apply to a federal court for a dec violated by the USCIS’s failure to record the approval of his application “in and about 2005-2006” also does not create jurisdiction in the district court. See Estrada v. Holder, 604 F.3d 402, 407-08 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Declaratory Judgment Act does
holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the apa and the due process clause over an aliens procedural challenge to the recission of his permanent resident status because the issue was reviewable in his pending removal proceedings holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal 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