but limited to being “taken out of the expedited removal system and given a regular immigration judge hearing.” The requested relief, however, even if ultimately temporary, is an order from this Court halting removal under the pending removal order. She is thus seeking “any relief from removal.” For all the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes the plain language of Section 1252 strips this Court of jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims. Cf. Smith v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 741 F.3d 1016, 1021-22 & n. 4 (9th Cir.2014) (limiting review to whether petitioner had been “ordered removed” under section 1225 and refusing to evaluate merits of Border Patrol’s decision to classify petitioner as an intending immigrant); Shunaula v. Holder, 732 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133,
holding that court did not have jurisdiction under 8 usc  1252a2a to hear aliens collateral attack on his order of expedited removal where he alleged illegality in attorney generals particular decision to remove him and in specific way his removal was carried out holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal holding that under  1252a2a court lacks jurisdiction to inquire whether the expedited removal procedure to which the khans were subjected was properly invoked holding that  1252a2a presents jurisdictional bar to collateral attack on expedited removal order holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order