590 (1999). Under the immigration laws, exhaustion of administrative remedies is statutorily required only on appeals to final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Exhaustion is not required when a petitioner challenges conditions imposed on bond. Rowe v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., No. Civ. A. 98-11511-GAO, 1999 WL 289362, at *2 (D.Mass. Apr.30, 1999); Pastor-Camarena v. Smith, 977 F.Supp. 1415, 1417 (W.D.Wash.1997) (finding no exhaustion requirement in a predeportation challenge to bond denial); Montero v. Cobb, 937. F.Supp. 88, 91 (D.Mass.1996) (stating that there is no federal statute that imposes an exhaustion requirement on aliens taken into custody pending their removal); cf. Lleo-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 989 F.Supp. 518, 519 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that
holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief holding that defendant seeking credit for time served must exhaust administrative remedies within the department of corrections prior to seeking judicial relief recognizing the general rule that parties must exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from federal courts  holding that an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention holding that the foia clearly requires a party to exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking redress in the federal courts and collecting cases