Subsection (i) clearly falls under a section of the statute that discusses denials of relief. Were plaintiffs contending that they had been denied relief, this court likely would not have jurisdiction over their claims. See, e, g., Diallo v. Reno, 61 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1367 (N.D.Ga. 1999) (" 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of a § 1255 denial of adjustment of status"); Cruz v. INS, 871 F. Supp. 1049, 1052 (N.D.Ill. 1995) (holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to judicial review of a denial of adjustment of status) (citing Massignani v. INS, 438 F.2d 1276 (7th Cir. 1971)). Because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not bar jurisdiction.

As our colleague Judge Milton Shadur noted — before McBrearty — although the law in this Circuit may not permit immediate review of the denial of an AOS application, it "does not entirely foreclose ultimate judicial review, but simply defers it for potential presentation at a later date before a different court." Cruz v. INS, 871 F. Supp. 1049, 1052 (N.D. Ill. 1995). One Seventh Circuit decision, which Mr. Abaya has not cited, arguably supports the proposition that a denied AOS applicant need not exhaust administrative remedies before judicial review is appropriate.

8 C.F.R. § 252.2 (a)(5)(ii)(1999); McBrearty, 212 F.3d at 987. Judicial review is not entirely foreclosed, but simply deferred for the potential presentation at a later date before a different court. Cruz v. INS, 871 F. Supp. 1049, 1052 (N.D.Ill. 1995). There is no question that [an applicant] can assert [his or] her claim before an Immigration Judge in a deportation proceeding, followed by an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and by review by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Act § 1105a.

8 C.F.R. § 252.2(a)(5)(ii)(1999); McBrearty, 212 F.3d at 987. Judicial review is not entirely foreclosed, but simply deferred for the potential presentation at a later date before a different court. Cruz v. INS, 871 F. Supp. 1049, 1052 (N.D. Ill. 1995). There is no question that [an applicant] can assert [his or] her claim before an Immigration Judge in a deportation proceeding, followed by an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and by review by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Act § 1105a.

This Court need not address the first two factors because plaintiffs can raise their claims before an immigration judge during removal procedures. See McBrearty, 212 F.3d at 987; Cruz v. INS, 871 F. Supp. 1049, 1053 (N.D.Ill. 1995). Plaintiffs' claim is also not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

" Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986). See also Cruz v. I.N.S., 871 F. Supp. 1049, 1050 (N.D.Ill. 1995). In this case, Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), as interpreted by Jeremy H. by Hunter v. Mount Lebanon School District, 95 F.3d 272, 282-83 (3rd Cir. 1996), and Family and Children's Center v. School City of Mishawaka, 13 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 420, 130 L.Ed.2d 335 (1994).