cases such as the present. Assessing when a district court is divested of jurisdiction — so that an appellate court can entertain relief — is the crux of the present case. Here, Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s relief based upon several lines of attack. To address the first of these contentions, the Court turns to the threshold issue of whether Petitioner is ‘in custody’ to allow for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A. Whether Petitioner, who is subject to removal orders and the government’s Intensive Supervised Appearance Program (‘ISAP’), shown she is ‘in custody’ so to invoke the writ of habeas corpus? To bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a person must satisfy the “in custody” requir 2 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs
holding that so long as the petitioner is subject to a final order of deportation an alien is deemed to be in custody1 for purposes of the ina holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available holding that the time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is jurisdictional holding that a collateral challenge to the use of a deportation proceeding as an element of a criminal offense must be permitted where the deportation proceeding effectively eliminates the right of the alien to obtain judicial review but declining to enumerate which procedural errors are so fundamental that they may functionally deprive the alien of judicial review holding that habeas review is  for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation