Thus, before the district court has jurisdiction to review a § 2241 petition, the petitioner must show that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” See id. A hopeful § 2241 petitioner may not argue the merits of his claim until he has “open[ed] the portal” to a § 2241 proceeding by demonstrating that the savings clause in § 2255(e) applies to his claim. Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1244 n. 3 (11th Cir.1999); see also Williams, 713 F.3d at 1339-40. We have not fully defined the scope of the § 2255(e) savings clause in all contexts; however, we have consistently stated that — to access § 2241 through the savings clause portal in § 2255(e) — a petitioner’s claim must, among other things, be based on a retroactively applicabl 1258 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-11, 109
holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to initial section 2255 motions for habeas relief