shall be the “sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”). Moreover, the REAL ID Act requires the district courts to transfer only those parts of the case that challenge an order of 2005 WL 3180188, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29699 (D.Conn. Nov.23, 2005) (transferring the portion of the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus seeking judicial review of her removal order, but retaining the portion of petitioner’s claim requesting adjudication of her pending applications for permission to reapply for admission and for adjustment of her status). The district courts do not, however, have jurisdiction to review claims that are not found to be independent of removal challenges. See, e.g., Munoz v. Gonzalez, 2005 WL 1644165, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14014 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2005) (<HOLDING>); Blake v. Gonzalez, 2005 WL 2850079, 2005 U.S.
holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct holding that the exhaustion requirement of  1252d1 applies only to an alien  challenging a final order of removal and not to  any person  holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition challenging a  1231a5 reinstatement proceeding explaining the appropriate court of appeals is the sole and exclusive means to review a  1231a5 order reinstating a prior removal order holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a petition challenging a removal order or to stay a removal order where the petitioner was not specifically challenging his physical detention