must be the “subject of removal proceedings” at the time of his SSI application in order to qualify as a Cuban/Haitian entrant under this definition. It is undisputed that at the time of his second, February 8, 2001 SSI application, Nodarse was a legal permanent resident and was not subject to removal proceedings. Therefore, he cannot qualify under § 501(e)(2) as a Cuban/Haitian entrant at the time of his second SSI application. Nodarse, however, argues that the relevant date from which his status should be measured under § 501(e)(2) is March 29, 1999, the date he filed his first application for SSI. Without getting into his substantive arguments, the Court notes that No-darse has failed to show that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain such arguments. Nodarse’s request ir.1982) (<HOLDING>) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108,
recognizing that motions to reopen to adjust status must be filed no later than ninety days after the bia issues its final decision holding that the distinct courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that the district courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that if a complaint is filed more than 60 days after a final decision a dissatisfied claimant may petition the secretary for relief however the secretarys decision whether to reopen those claims is discretionary and not subject to review holding that a decision of the bia whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 cfr  10032a is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond the courts review  ie the court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias decision not to reopen