on judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) — “is beyond the authority delegated to the INS and will not be applied” or given deference. Nagahi v. INS, 219 F.3d 1166, 1171 (10th Cir.2000). We are persuaded by the reasoning employed by our sister circuits in concluding that Chevron deference does not apply to an agency’s interpretation of a federal court’s jurisdiction. First, the conditions that license Chevron’s application are not present in this case. “A principal reason why courts pay agencies no deference on jurisdiction-conferring statutes is that such statutes do not grant powers to agencies.” Murphy, 252 F.3d at 478. Section 1421(c) does not delegate authority to the Executive Branch; rather, it confers power directly on federal courts. See Nagahi, 219 F.3d at 1169-70 (<HOLDING>). Second, a key rationale motivating Chevron
holding that possession was not so fleeting as to extend the statute beyond its arguable limits holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage holding that congresss broad delegations of authority to the attorney general in  1103a3 1421a and 1443a do not extend to creating limits upon judicial review holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case