review of a denial of “Special Agriculture Worker” (“SAW”) status except in the context of a deportation order. The statute states: “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status under this section except in accordance with this subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e) (as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). The Court held that this bar did not preclude review of “general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications.” McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 896. Rather, it only barred review of individual denials of SAW status. Id. The statute in McNary resembles the CERCLA provision at issue here in two r S.Ct. 2457, 2465, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that we have jurisdiction
holding that more expansive language barred all challenges related to statute holding that the defendant was precluded from asserting error where the defendant had used all of his peremptory challenges and did not ask for more holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional