context: This review process, not surprisingly, is exclusive. See 8 U.S.C. SSSS 1252(b)(9) and (d)(1). Thus, other courts who have confronted this issue have reached the same conclusion.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 432 F.3d 200, 200-201
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that an AAO eligibility determination is "final" and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated, but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun
citation_a.sentence: See Howell v. INS, 72 F.3d 288, 293 (2d Cir.1995) (finding jurisdiction lacking where removal proceedings had begun because denials of status adjustment may be reviewed by immigration judges); cf. Pinho, 432 F.3d at 200-201 (holding that an AAO eligibility determination is “final” and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated, but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 72 F.3d 288, 293
citation_b.parenthetical: finding jurisdiction lacking where removal proceedings had begun because denials of status adjustment may be reviewed by immigration judges
citation_b.sentence: See Howell v. INS, 72 F.3d 288, 293 (2d Cir.1995) (finding jurisdiction lacking where removal proceedings had begun because denials of status adjustment may be reviewed by immigration judges); cf. Pinho, 432 F.3d at 200-201 (holding that an AAO eligibility determination is “final” and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated, but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun).