With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 106(b). In addition to requiring petitions filed after May 11, 2005 to be filed in the courts of appeals, the Act also requires district courts to transfer any case or part of any case challenging an order of removal, deportation or exclusion pending on the date of the Act’s enactment to the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which a petition for review could have been filed. While Congress specifically eliminated the district courts’ habeas corpus jurisdiction over review of removal orders, the REAL ID Act does not affect the district courts’ jurisdiction over review of other habeas corpus claims. Section 106(a)(1) only eliminates district courts’ habeas jurisdiction over review of orders of removal. See id. at § 106(a)(1) (a petition for revie ist. LEXIS 25753 (D.Conn. Oct.24, 2005) (<HOLDING>). Because Petitioner’s habeas claim was pending

A: holding that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the underlying final order upon petition for review of a motion to reopen where the petitioner did not earlier seek review of that underlying final order
B: holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability  was the final order
C: holding that a challenge to the ijs procedures and decision to deport the petitioner constituted a challenge to a final order of deportation stripping the district court of jurisdiction to review the habeas petition
D: holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review
C.