the immigration statute expressly removed jurisdiction to consider whether the officer acted in accordance with the statute. See id. at 663-64, 12 S.Ct. 336. There was thus nothing to show that Congress intended the process due such an arriving alien not to include the power of the courts to review whether the congressionally prescribed process was followed. That Congress by statute once permitted greater judicial review and procedural rights to arriving aliens does not mean that the Suspension Clause prohibits Congress from providing arriving aliens fewer procedural protections, so long as the writ still lies to determine whether a sufficient ground of removal and detention appears. See Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212-15, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Here, review lies under the INA to ensure
holding alien detained as enemy combatant at guantanamo bay has no constitutional right to writ of habeas corpus holding that a criminal alien who does not have the right to demand the exercise of discretion cannot challenge its nonexercise by means of habeas review holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus holding that entering alien detained on ellis island while able to test validity of his exclusion by habeas corpus did not have right to retry determination of attorney general in courts to have a hearing or to have evidence disclosed to him upon which determination rested holding criminal defendant does not have constitutional right to have guilty plea accepted by court