(7th Cir.2005), is instructive. In Labojew-ski, the petitioner, a citizen of Poland, entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in 1987. He overstayed the visa and was deported in 1990. He illegally reentered the United States in 1992 or 1993 using a false passport and visa. In 1994, his mother, a lawful permanent resident, filed an 1-130 petition on his behalf, and in 2001, the petitioner applied for adjustment of status under § 245(i). ICE discovered that the petitioner had reentered the United States after being removed, and reinstated his removal orders under § 241(a)(5). The petitioner argued that because he had illegally reentered the United States before Congress passed § 241(a)(5), it should not apply retroactiv 2003); Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Lino acknowledges these cases but does not
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 an alien who entered this country illegally from mexico could establish domicile holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident holding that an alien who illegally reenters this country is not eligible for adjustment of status because the reinstatement provision controls