the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). While this provision does not strip the district court of § 2241 habeas jurisdiction, see Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th Cir.2002), Mr. Latu cannot allege a constitutional or legal right to have removal proceedings against him commenced in a particular place-that decision is left to the unfettered discretion of the attorney general. He therefor~ cannot satis~i the requirement of `stating that he is being held in violation of the federal laws or Constitution, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), and the district court had no jurisdiction to review his claim. See Bakhtriger v. Elwood, 360 F.3d 414, 420 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592 (5th
holding that a criminal alien who does not have the right to demand the exercise of discretion cannot challenge its nonexercise by means of habeas review holding that habeas proceedings do not embrace review of the exercise of discretion in criminal alien cases holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available