this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain constitutional challenges where § 1252(a)(2)(c) applies, but the cases she cites for this proposition — Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001), and Flores-Garza, 328 F.3d at 802-03 — are inapposite. The Court in Calcano-Martinez declined to consider this issue, because it was not relevant to the disposition of the petitions under review. See Calcano-Martinez, 533 U.S. at 350 n. 2, 121 S.Ct. 2268. Similarly, Flores-Garza did not decide the issue, because there we found that it was undisputed that the alien was removable by another reason that independently triggered the jurisdiction-stripping provision. See Flores-Garza, 328 F.3d at 802. 11 . See Santos v. Reno, 228 F.3d 591, 597 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Rivera-Sanchez v. Reno, 198 F.3d 545, 547
holding that district court must resolve all claims for relief premised on alleged constitutional violations which are raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus whether habeas relief is granted or denied holding that federal habeas relief is unavailable based upon the application of a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by this court holding that habeas is unavailable where the court of appeals could have heard the claims presented through another avenue of relief holding that ajlternatively matters of public policy in the judicial arena are relegated to marylands highest courtthe court of appeals  ujntil or unless either avenue of redress available to appellant  is pursued it is not within our purview  to overrule a decision of the court of appeals holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied