unless the agency action is a “ ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’ ” See R. 31, PagelD#: 567 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704). The Supreme Court has held two conditions must be satisfied in order for agency action to be final. “First, the action must mark the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and cannot “be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (internal citation omitted). “[S]econd, the action must be one by which ‘rights or obligations have been determined,’ or from which ‘legal consequences will flow[.]’ ” Id. at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154. As the Magistrate Judge observes, “[n]either Plaintiff nor Defendants have cited 7 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>) (quoted by Qureshi 663 F.3d at 781); see also
holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending