failure to exhaust administrative remedies, making the claim unripe for review. See Rahman v. McElroy, 884 F.Supp. 782, 785 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (dismissing complaint of aliens simultaneously seeking adjustment and immigrant visas where the adjustment applications had not yet been adjudicated, and holding that “[f]ailure to seek ... administrative review before challenging an adjustment denial in a district court constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”); Yeung v. Reno, 868 F.Supp. 53, 57 .(S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 57 F.3d 1062 (2d Cir.1995) (“This court has concluded that its direct review of an adjustment determination is precluded by the requirement of exhaustion of remedies.” (citations omitted)); Augoustinakis v. United States I.N.S., 693 F.Supp. 1554, 1556 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>). As a general rule, subject matter
holding that a district court opinion which cites as controlling authority a decision that is either pending review in or has been reversed by this court continues to constitute prima facie express conflict and allows this court to exercise its jurisdiction holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court holding that because deportation proceedings may produce a different outcome any decision by this court regarding the appropriateness of the district directors refusal to exercise his discretion to adjust the plaintiffs status would constitute an advisory opinion which is prohibited citations omitted recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue