deportation or exclusion. Id. at § 106(c) (“[T]he district court shall transfer the case (or part of the case that challenges the order of removal, deportation or exclusion) to the court of appeals ... ”). The legislative history specifically states that § 106 does not divest district courts of habeas review over other claims: “[SJection 106 will not preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are independent of challenges to removal orders. Instead, the bill would eliminate habeas review only over challenges to removal orders.” H.R.Rep. No. 109-72, 175, 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140 (May 3, 2005). Thus, district courts retain jurisdiction over matters independent of challenges to removal orders. See, e.g., Channer v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 406 F.Supp.2d 204 (D.Conn.2005) (<HOLDING>); Zhicay v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Homeland
holding that the plaintiffs challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties holding that a plaintiffs reference to himself and all similarly situated future petitioners did not change the essence of his action from a particularized challenge of the state courts decision against him to a general challenge of a statute holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act holding that the petitioners challenge was independent of a challenge to her removal order because he was challenging her detention in state custody thereby rendering  106c inapplicable