With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by Congress). See also Diaz Rodriguez v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. Civ. 14-2716, at 7, 2014 WL 4675182 (W.D.La. Sept. 18, 2014) (“The expedited removal statute applies with equal force to illegal entrants within 100 miles of the border who cannot show that they have been physically present in the United States continuously for the fourteen-day period immediately preceding the date of their apprehension. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(l)(A)(iii). In such a situation, the entrants have not developed the ties ■ or prop r § 1252(a)(2)(A) court lacked jurisdiction to consider due process claim in habeas petition of resident alien, who was subject to expedited removal after he failed to depart the United States following expiration of his period of parole); Shunaula, 732 F.3d at 145-47 (<HOLDING>). C. Request for Emergency Stay As this Court

A: 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
B: holding that  1252a2a presents jurisdictional bar to collateral attack on expedited removal order
C: holding that under  1252a2a court lacks jurisdiction to inquire whether the expedited removal procedure to which the khans were subjected was properly invoked
D: holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order
D.