“strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action,” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), and the “ ‘longstanding principle of construing any lingering ambiguities in deportation statutes in favor- of the alien,’ ” id. at 320, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 449, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)), we hold that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not strip courts of jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary decisions regarding an alien’s eligibility for the relief specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. Our decision here is consistent with the decisions of other circuits, which have held that § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not bar judicial review of nondiscretionary, or purely legal, decisi 41 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1298 (11th
holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that ijs determination of whether aliens daughter qualifies as a child for the purposes of  1229b was not a judgment within meaning of statute because it did not involve exercise of discretion holding that rule 6e qualifies as a statute for purposes of exemption 3 holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child