determinations was not traditionally available in habeas proceedings. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.2007). The Cisneroses also argue that because Fernandez is in conflict with Ramadan, and because they filed their habeas petition during the time period between the two decisions, we should equitably toll the filing period to allow them to file a direct appeal in this court. This argument is unavailing because Ramadan is not in tension with Fernandez. Ramadan did not change the legal landscape as to either constitutional claims (which could already be filed in this court under Fernandez) or as to non-constitutional challenges to the BIA’s discretionary denials of motions to reopen (which still cannot be appealed to our court after Ramadan). See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 654 (<HOLDING>); see also Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 980-81
holding that  1252a4 of the real id act precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the petitioners habeas petition holding that federal jurisdiction over  2241 petitions does not extend to review of discretionary determinations by the ij and the bia holding that the real id act does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations holding that adverse credibility determinations under the real id act must take into consideration the individual circumstances of the applicant holding that the real id act leaves this court deprived of jurisdiction to review discretionary and factual determinations