he now petitions this Court for review. Although Mazariegos-Chojolan couches much of his argument in legal terms, the disposition of his claim depends upon the critical factual determination whether he registered for ABC benefits in a timely fashion. See Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894, 900 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that an alien’s recitation of “due process” and legal precedent in her brief “does not convert her attack on the BIA’s exercise of discretion into a colorable constitutional” or legal claim over which this Court would have jurisdiction). Mazariegos-Chojolan’s NA-CARA claim is not properly before this Court because the agency denied relief based on his failure to register for ABC benefits in a timely fashion. See Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058, 1069 (8th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). The petition is dismissed for lack of
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 burden is on alien when alien is removable recognizing that whether an alien registered for abc benefits in a timely manner is a purely factual issue over which this court lacks jurisdiction holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia