With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the BIA violated his due process rights and erred in determining that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal. He also sought the opportunity to apply for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The District Court denied Gerbier’s request for habeas relief, finding that the BIA had properly determined that Gerbier was an aggravated felon and, thus, ineligible for cancellation of removal. The District Court permitted Gerbier to apply for protection under CAT, but Gerbier subsequently declined this opportunity. This timely appeal followed. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 2287, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (<HOLDING>). We have appellate jurisdiction to review a

A: holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 is not jurisdictional
B: holding that the aedpa applies to those habeas corpus petitions filed after its effective date of april 24 1996
C: holding that habeas jurisdiction under  2241 was not repealed by  the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 iirira
D: holding that neither the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 nor the illegal immigration reform act of 1996 repealed the district courts jurisdiction to review aliens habeas petitions
D.