if “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” Accordingly, we examine whether defen dants’ determination that Mr. Delgado would not receive flight training was committed to agency discretion by law. In directing a flight school not to provide the requested flight training, the Attorney General was charged by law with assessing whether an alien “presents a risk to aviation or national security.” Under § 701(a)(2), review of an agency decision is not available in those rare circumstances where “the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988) (quotation omitted); see also Heckler, 470 U.S. at 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649 (<HOLDING>). Here, as in Webster, the statute gives no
holding that  1252a2bs ban on review of judgments regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions holding that  1252a2bii precludes  review of discretionary decisions  in only the specific circumstances specified in the statute itself holding that the aedpa standard of review applies even where the state court has given no indication of how it reached its decision holding  701a2 precludes review even where congress has not affirmatively precluded it where statute provides no meaningful standard for judging agencys discretionary decision holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable