Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at 905. The district court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit because the petition “challenged a final order of removal.” Id. at 906. The Court of Appeals consolidated the habeas petition with a preexisting petition for review and agreed with the district court, concluding that “Haider’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus does nothing more than attack the IJ’s removal order.” Id. at 910. After recounting the holding in Haider, the Nnadika Court expressed its approval by explaining that “only challenges that directly implicate the order of removal, such as the challenge to the notice of the removal hearing in Haider, are properly the subject of transfer under the REAL ID Act.” 484 F.3d at 632; see also Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). While this Court has not previously addressed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that term order of removal does not include aliens ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning attorneys actions taken after order of removal becomes final (C) recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel (D) holding that the farr act is expressly limited to claims arising out of a final order of removal and does not confer any legal rights outside of the removal setting (E) holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal
Output (English): holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct