... is first implemented.” Id. § 1252(e)(3)(B). IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction-Stripping Provisions of Section 1252 Expressly Preclude Jurisdiction over Merits of Petition The Government first argues that’ this Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a stay of execution of Petitioner’s removal order based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which strips the courts of jurisdiction over claims arising from decisions by the Attorney General to execute removal orders against an alien. The Government contends that, because Petitioner is not pro nce of Section 1252(e)(5) to allow revie emoval order was issued pursuant to § 1225(b)(1). As a result, we lack jurisdiction to review any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying removal order in this case.”); Vaupel, 244 Fed.Appx. at 895 (<HOLDING>). Petitioner argues that this statutory
holding that court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of question of whether immigration officer correctly initiated expedited removal proceedings holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place holding that strict limitations set forth in section 1252e preclude judicial review of any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order