both the remedy requested and direct review of the discretionary decisions at issue, the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain a Bivens class action requesting such review and remedy. D. Applicability of this Case to Habeas Analysis Finally, we respond to appellants’ argument that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1252(f) do not apply to bar review when constitutional due process issues like those alleged in the complaint have been raised. Initially, we note that the Bivens class action complaint requests only prospective in-junctive relief based on a hypothetical transfer to a remote area and a totally speculative future violation of due process that would not arise solely from the transfer itself. Cf Committee of Central Am. Refugees v. INS, 682 F.Supp. 1055, 1064-65 (N.D.Ca.1988) (<HOLDING>); Committee of Central Am. Refugees v. INS, 795
holding that injunctive relief is a form of equity which is generally subject to the courts discretion holding that the inss mailing a hearing notice to an aliens last known address but not to his attorney violated the aliens due process rights because the alien reasonably relied on statutory and regulatory language not relevant here that suggested his counsel would receive copies of all such notices holding that a transfer to another ins facility standing alone does not constitute a violation of plaintiffs due process or statutory rights justifying the issuance of injunctive relief to restrict the attorney generals discretion to detain aliens in appropriate ins facilities holding that the bias streamlining procedure does not violate an aliens due process rights holding that 28 usc  1491b4 does not deprive a court of its equitable discretion in deciding whether injunctive relief is appropriate  and does not automatically require a court to set aside an arbitrary capricious or otherwise unlawful contract award and affirming the denial of injunctive relief in a postaward protest despite finding that the procuring agency committed prejudicial error