his status as a beneficiary of that petition,” such relief would be absolutely fruitless. Pets.’ Opp. at 3. Were the USCIS to recognize that the Form 1-130 was initially filed on Malhi’s behalf prior to April 30, 2001, that would presumably remove one obstacle in Malhi’s quest to be eligible for an adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(l)(B)(i) (permitting illegal aliens who have filed 1-130 petitions by April 30, 2001, to be eligible for adjustment). However, even if the earlier 1-130 date was recognized, this recognition would not, and could not, “nullify § 1229e(d)’s preclusive effect on [Malhi’s] application for adjustment of status or otherwise relieve him of the consequences of his failure to depart voluntarily.” Singh, 468 F.3d at 137; see also Dacosta, 449 F.3d at 50-51 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Thus, “[b]ecause [Malhi]
holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding that later agency action cannot retroactively nullify the consequences of a petitioners failure to comply with a voluntary departure order holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding the director of the united states environmental protection agency in contempt for failure to comply with court order holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order