Opinion ID: 3014440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: to obtain review of discretion and evidence

Text: would be ill-fated, Bakhtriger tries to Bakihtriger’s habeas petition repackage these claims as matters of law challenges both the underpinnings of the by pointing out that the reason he is BIA factual findings and the BIA’s subject to removal is pursuant to a law of decision not to exercise discretion in favor the United States, and that the “substantial evidence” standard under APA-style review is established as a legal 10 Yang v. INS, 109 F.3d 1185, requirement. The fact that there are legal 1195-96 (7th Cir. 1997) takes the same principles that govern these matters, position, but we do not rely on it because however, does not convert every question the Seventh Circuit appears to have relied of fact or discretion into a question of law. in part on its view that IIRIRA had If it did, rivers of ink expended in case law abolished review under section 2241, a distinguishing between legal and factual position later repudiated by St. Cyr. 14 questions would have been spilled for no reason. Similarly, although review as a matter of law encompasses deciding whether legal principles have been properly applied to undisputed facts, see Ogbudimkpa, 342 F.3d at 222, it does not encompass deciding the factual issues themselves. We will not delineate the precise boundaries between permitted review of legal questions and forbidden review of factual issues or matters of discretion in this opinion. What is clear in this case is that the review Bakhtriger seeks is squarely on the forbidden side of the line. The District Court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the claims in Bakhtriger’s habeas petition.