policies interpreting IRCA’s substantive eligibility criteria, except on appeal from an order of deportation. Justice O’Connor has characterized this new legal landscape in the following words: [in CSS we] concluded that the only people who could ask for injunctive or declaratory relief under IRCA were those who were told by the INS that they should not even bother to file their applications_ Under the statute, aliens who did apply and whose applications were considered but rejected could only get judicial review of this rejection if the INS tried to deport them. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(l). INS v. Legalization Assistance Project, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 422, 423, 126 L.Ed.2d 410 (1993) (O’Connor, Circuit Justice) (emphasis added); see also Ayuda, Inc. v. Reno, 7 F.3d 246, 249 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); id. at 251 (Wald, J., dissenting)
holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction holding that a federal district court should retain jurisdiction until all efforts to obtain adjudication on constitutional questions have been exhausted in the state courts holding that in css the supreme court conclusively foreclosed all efforts to gain federal district court review of ins interpretations of irca holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit holding that a state court criminal judgment is final for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the united states supreme court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires