however, habeas review of BIA decisions remains available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “[T]he availability of habeas to challenge deportation orders has long been recognized.” Jean-Baptiste, 144 F.3d at 218 (citing Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 234-35, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972 (1953)). The District Court determined that, following IIRIRA, habeas was not available to Gonzalez-Roque because “the right to seek collateral review [of deportation orders] through a writ of habeas corpus was not well-established, and opposed by the government.” Gonzalez-Roque, 165 F.Supp.2d at 584. It pointed out that the availability of such relief was not finally settled by the Supreme Court until last year. Id. (citing Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 351, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001) (<HOLDING>); St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 298-314, 121 S.Ct. 2271
holding that because the farr act does not expressly mention habeas corpus or 28 usc  2241 it does not eliminate habeas jurisdiction holding that iirira  309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc  2241 holding that jurisdictionstripping provisions of iirira did not preclude aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from pursuing habeas relief pursuant to 28 usc  2241 holding that habeas jurisdiction under  2241 was not repealed by  the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 iirira holding that because 28 usc  2241 habeas corpus relief is available to review constitutional claims congress preclusion of direct appeals in iirira see tion 309c4g does not offend the due process clause of the constitution