Opinion ID: 777951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application to Liu

Text: 17 In her complaint, which the district court construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Liu contends, inter alia, that the government violated her rights under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in connection with her removal proceedings. See Pet. of Jan. 3, 2000, at 2, ¶ 5; id. at 13, ¶ 6. We do not, as we already have noted, either express or intend to imply a view on the merits of Liu's claims. We do, however, emphasize that here, as in Chmakov, Liu's petition must not be construed to be seeking review of any discretionary decision made by the Attorney General, see 266 F.3d at 215. The INA, as amended, plainly prohibits such review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) ([N]o court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to [ inter alia ] execute removal orders....); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-84, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (construing § 1252(g)). But insofar as Liu challenges the constitutionality or legality of the BIA's decision dismissing [her] claim for asylum and entering a removal order against [her], Chmakov, 266 F.3d at 215, her petition raises a pure question of law, St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 298, 121 S.Ct. 2271, cognizable on collateral review. See Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 235-36, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972 (1953) (distinguishing judicial review from habeas corpus review and emphasizing that the latter has always been limited to the enforcement of due process requirements); see also Atkinson v. INS, No. 01-CV-3432, 2001 WL 1223481, at , 2001 U.S.Dist.Lexis 16428, at  (S.D.N.Y. Oct.15, 2001) (Mukasey, C.J.) (declining to delineate the precise parameters of § 2241 review but holding that it does not extend so far as to permit the review of discretionary administrative determinations). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which survives the [1996] amendments to the INA, Jean-Baptiste v. Reno, 144 F.3d 212, 220 (2d Cir.1998), the district court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over Liu's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.