v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2001) (“We do not doubt Congress’ power to mandate adequate and effective substitutes for habeas review.”). Accordingly, if the review available in the Courts of Appeals under the REAL ID Act is an adequate and effective substitute for the writ, the Act does not violate the Suspension Clause. Although this Court has not yet addressed the question, other Circuits, with which we now join, have determined that the provision of the REAL ID Act at issue here is not unconstitutional because “it provides, through review by a federal court of appeals, an adequate and effective remedy to test the legality of an alien’s detention.” Alexandre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 1204, 1206 (11th Cir.2006); see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th
holding that  1252a4 of the real id act precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the petitioners habeas petition holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus holding that the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for postconviction relief under rule 3850 holding that because the real id act created a remedy as broad in scope as a habeas petition the act is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus