so they could obtain counsel, and the fact that they had engaged three different lawyers in the past weighed in favor of an additional continuance. As noted, petitioners had requested and received numerous continuances. They were warned that the hearing set for May 17, 20 1391-92 (BIA 2000) (stating BIA lacks jurisdiction over the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) exercise of prosecutorial discretion). Ac cordingly, the BIA correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to direct the DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion. To the extent petitioners request this court to direct the BIA to close the case administratively, doing so would be meaningless since the BIA’s order dismissing the appeal is a final order. See Batubara v. Holder, 733 F.3d 1040, 1042 (10th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). “The administrative closing of a ease does
holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted holding that the bia adopts the ijs entire decision when it cites burbano and expresses no disagreement with the ijs decision holding that the bias streamlining procedure does not compromise appellate review because the ijs decision becomes the final agency action subject to direct review by the court of appeals holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability  was the final order holding that ijs and bias finding of applicants lack of credibility was substantially supported by the inconsistencies regarding the date of spouses alleged sterilization