(internal citation omitted)); Keita v. Holder, 486 Fed.Appx. 951, 952 (2d Cir.2012) (summary order) (“We assume, without deciding, that we have jurisdiction in this case of denial of deferral of removal.”). However, such an assumption is prohibited in all but the narrowest of circumstances. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (criticizing exercise of “hypothetical” jurisdiction as “earr[ying] the courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and ... offend[ing] fundamental principles of separation of powers” and explaining that “[wjithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ctr. for Reprod. Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183, 193-94 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we now consider the issue, and
recognizing that absent illegality we do not weigh the wisdom of any particular employment decision internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that in order to support a separate conviction for aggravated kidnapping the assailants detention must have made the assault substantially easier to commit citation and internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted recognizing that ordinarily we are not to assume the existence of jurisdiction in favor of reaching an easier merits issue but acknowledging an exception to the rule for limited and peculiar circumstances internal quotation marks omitted