With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". narrow restrictions on jurisdiction set forth in Section 1252(e), Petitioner argues that Section 1252(e)(2)(B)’s jurisdiction to review “whether the petitioner was ordered removed” includes the issue of whether Petitioner should have been given an expedited removal order in the first place. The Court disagrees. Petitioner’s expansive reading of Section 1252(e)(2)(B) is foreclosed by Section 1252(e)(5), in which Congress divested the district courts of jurisdiction to review “whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.” Instead, Congress made clear that the only review contemplated in Section 1252(e)(2)(B) is “whether such an order in fact was issued and whether it relates to the petitioner.” Cf. Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325, 327 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Brumme v. I.N.S., 275 F.3d 443, 447-48 (5th

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 the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney
C: holding that court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of question of whether immigration officer correctly initiated expedited removal proceedings
D: holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place
C.