737, 118 S.Ct. 1665 (finding that a challenge to a Forest Service management plan was unripe, in part because "Congress has not provided for preimplementation judicial review of forest plans” under the National Forest Management Act, in contrast to other statutes, like RCRA § 7006, under which "Congress has specifically instructed the courts to review 'preenforcement' ”). 4 . Although we must decide threshold questions before reaching the merits, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), we may consider whether a case is ripe before determining whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction, see Toca Producers v. FERC, 411 F.3d 262, 265 n. * (D.C.Cir.2005). 5 . See General Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 451 (D.C.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Hudson v. FAA, 192 F.3d 1031, 1034-35
holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review holding that a coram nobis petition remained pending until  the court of appeals denied petitioners application for leave to appeal the appellate divisions denial of his petition holding that a challenge to the ijs procedures and decision to deport the petitioner constituted a challenge to a final order of deportation stripping the district court of jurisdiction to review the habeas petition holding that when a first  2255 motion succeeds in obtaining a sentence amendment a subsequent motion will be considered a first motion to the extent that it challenges a new or amended component of the sentence and a second motion to the extent that it challenges either a component of the original unamended sentence or the underlying conviction holding that to the extent the petition challenges the application of epas regulatory interpretation to petitioners plants the challenge is unripe