§ 242(a)(2)(B) also bars review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Finally, even if this court were to find that the effective date of INA § 242(a)(2)(B) renders it inapplicable to the instant case, this court still lacks the authority to review the District Director’s decision to deny an extension of voluntary departure. Prior to the enactment of the IIRIRA, the District Director had the sole authority to grant voluntary departures under the former 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1252(b), 1254(e). See Kaczmarczyk, 933 F.2d at 597; Ademi v. INS, 31 F.3d 517, 521 (7th Cir.1994). Under former 8 C.F.R. § 244.2, the District Director was vested with the sole authority to reinstate or extend a grant of voluntary departure and no appeal could be taken from that determination. See Kaczmarczyk, 933 F.2d at 598 (<HOLDING>); see also Nocon v. INS, 789 F.2d 1028, 1034
holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem  to have a basis recognizing limited jurisdiction of judiciary to review such decisions under 8 cfr  2442 and holding that court lacked authority to review inss discretionary grant of voluntary departure