Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 104, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The APA therefore creates a “strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action.” Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986); see also INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). That the substantive law to be applied in this case is tribal law does not affect our jurisdiction over an APA challenge to the BIA’s decision. “[I]t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court ha[s] jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331.” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 891 n. 16, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988); see also Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 83-84 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Runs After, 766 F.2d at 351 (citing
holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioners collateral attack under  1331 holding that 28 usc  1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit which involves an erisa plan even though the suit purports to raise only state law claims since the suit is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the manifest intent of congress holding that  207 confers private right of action holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation holding that  1331 confers jurisdiction over a suit that arises under a right of action created by the apa