reviewed in a judicial forum requires, at a minimum, that review be made available in any subsequent proceeding in which the result of the deportation proceeding is used to establish an element of a criminal offense.” Id. at 839, 107 S.Ct. 2148; accord United States v. Sosa, 387 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir.2004). Here the government does not seek to use Shunaula’s 1997 expedited removal as “an element of a criminal offense,” United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. at 839, 107 S.Ct. 2148, but only as the basis for a finding of inadmissibility. Thus, Shunaula cannot rely on Mendoza-Lopez to override the jurisdictional bar erected by § 1252(a)(2)(A) in this case. Insofar as Shunaula argues that his challenge falls within the exception created by § 1252(e)(3) for “systemic” c (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Lorenzo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th
recognizing collateral attack on void order holding that court did not have jurisdiction under 8 usc  1252a2a to hear aliens collateral attack on his order of expedited removal where he alleged illegality in attorney generals particular decision to remove him and in specific way his removal was carried out holding that under  1252a2a court lacks jurisdiction to inquire whether the expedited removal procedure to which the khans were subjected was properly invoked holding that  1252a2a presents jurisdictional bar to collateral attack on expedited removal order holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order