must also take into consideration the policy consequences of a decision that would require an individualized bond hearing for each and every illegal alien in Petitioner’s circumstance. Thus, the petition for habeas corpus must be denied because the Court has no power under the statute to review a decision by an immigration judge to grant or deny bond. Jurisdiction over the Constitutional Question In contrast to the Court’s holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of bond under INA § 236(c), the Court holds that it does have jurisdiction to review the question of the constitutionality of this statute. While INA § 236(e) may bar review of detention or bond decisions, it does not bar challenges to the statute itself. Parra v. Perryman, 172 F.3d 964 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). At oral argument, Respondent conceded this
holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions holding that  1226e does not purport to foreclose challenges to  1226c itself as opposed to decisions implementing that subsection holding that subsection 13la does not apply if the information is not of a personal nature holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction  over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court