pending removal, upon the posting of a $5,000 bond. The Release concedes that “removal does not appear reasonably foreseeable at this time,” and does not state that Shokeh is a danger to the community. Shokeh has not posted bond and therefore remains in custody. Shokeh filed a habeas petition challenging the imposition of bond as a condition of his release. The district court, citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.5, denied Shokeh’s petition and dismissed it with prejudice, reasoning that bond is a permissible condition of supervised release. Shokeh timely filed a notice of appeal; this appeal follows. II. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction to review a confined immigrant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 312-13, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (<HOLDING>). See also Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590,
holding that habeas jurisdiction under  2241 was not repealed by  the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 iirira holding that iirira  309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28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that neither the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 nor the illegal immigration reform act of 1996 repealed the district courts jurisdiction to review aliens habeas petitions holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction holding that iirira does not remove statutory habeas jurisdiction because it does not contain express language repealing  2241 and because to do so would violate the separation of powers doctrine