held that the petition could not be construed “as a challenge to a decision or action to ‘adjudicate cases’ While the claim arises out of the February 1996 hearing at which they agreed to drop their asylum claim in exchange for voluntary departure, the Mustatas are not challenging the Attorney General’s decision to adjudicate their case. They are not claiming that the Attorney General should have exercised her discretion to not adjudicate their case and grant them “deferred action.” Id. at 1022 (emphasis added). Here, just as in Mustata, petitioner is not claiming that the INS should have granted him “deferred action” before adjudicating his case — instead he challenges the statutory and constitutional foundation for other decisions made during his removal proceedings. See also id. (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Thus the government’s
holding that term order of removal does not include aliens ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning attorneys actions taken after order of removal becomes final holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that petitioners claim is not one to the attorney generals decision or action to execute a removal order either since the facts relevant to their claim  took place well before any decision by the attorney general to execute a removal order holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal