denied. See also Uspango v. Ashcroft, 289 F.3d 226, 230 (3d Cir.2002) (reaching a similar conclusion and saying, “filing an asylum petition did not implicate any quid pro quo arrangement with the government”). We hold 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) does not have an impermissible retroactive effect as applied to Molina and deny the remainder of his petition for review. D. District Court Proceedings We are left with the stayed district court proceedings, to which the parties have brought our attention and upon which the district court has invited us to rule. We agree with the district court’s statement that jurisdiction to review the propriety of the Reinstatement Order rests with the court of appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see, e.g., Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 781, 782 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 510 (8th
holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a petition challenging a removal order or to stay a removal order where the petitioner was not specifically challenging his physical detention holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court holding that a habeas petition in the court of appeals is the exclusive remedy for challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition challenging a  1231a5 reinstatement proceeding explaining the appropriate court of appeals is the sole and exclusive means to review a  1231a5 order reinstating a prior removal order holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review