Martinez

MEMORANDUM *

1. The government argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) deprives us of jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of Martinez’s request for a continuance to apply for adjustment of status. But this provision only bars our jurisdiction if a statute explicitly gives the Attorney General discretion over the decision at issue. See id.; Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 520, 528 (9th Cir.2004). The IJ’s discretionary authority to deny Martinez’s motion for a continuance — authority derived, as the government argues, from its “inherent power” as an adjudicator and from INA regulations — is thus insufficient to deprive us of jurisdiction over Martinez’s claim.

2. Martinez’s claim that, under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.49 (a), the IJ was required to inform her of her eligibility to apply for adjustment of status was not raised below and is thus unexhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). Martinez did, however, raise her claim that the IJ was required by the same regulations to afford her an opportunity to apply for adjustment of status. But exhaustion aside, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.49 (a) is inapplicable and both of Martinez’s claims fail…