of appeals, and this jurisdiction is exclusive as to actions brought to adjudicate or execute removal orders. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2), (9), (g). Although habeas jurisdiction remains available to deportees who raise questions of law and who have no other available judicial forum, see INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), the statute here provides an adequate judicial forum, permitting the noncriminal deportee to file a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals. Because judicial review was available to Lopez, the district court was not authorized to hear this,§ 2241 habeas petition. See Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir.2001); Bini v. Aljets, No. 01-3234, 36 Fed.Appx. 868, 2002 WL 535083, at *1 (8th Cir.2002) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Lopez filed the wrong action in the wrong
holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the purported state law claim for violation of the automatic stay and that any such claim could be brought only in bankruptcy court only holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a petition challenging a removal order or to stay a removal order where the petitioner was not specifically challenging his physical detention