With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 1210, 1214 (D.C.Cir.1997), (“IIRIRA now undisputably deprives both district courts and courts of appeals of jurisdiction to decide the instant action [arising from the ‘decision or action’ of the Attorney General to execute a removal order].”), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3264 (1997) (No. 97-52); Safarian v. Reno, 968 F.Supp. at 1105 (“Generally, § 1252 has been held to divest the district court completely of all jurisdiction to review alien’s claims.”) (citing cases); Yang v. INS, 109 F.3d 1185, 1195 (7th Cir.1997) (“IIR[IR]A abolishes even review under § 2241, leaving only the constitutional writ, unaided by statute.”), cert. denied sub nom. Katsoulis v. INS, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 624, 139 L.Ed.2d 605 (1997). But see Mojica v. Reno, 970 F.Supp. 130, 157 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); Ozoanya v. Reno, 968 F.Supp. 1, 6-7

A: recognizing separation of powers doctrine
B: holding that iirira does not remove statutory habeas jurisdiction because it does not contain express language repealing  2241 and because to do so would violate the separation of powers doctrine
C: recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine
D: holding that the plras three strikes rule is a procedural rule that does not violate the separation of powers doctrine
B.