With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". where the defendants are federal actors). It follows that “if [the petitioner] is seeking a different program or location or environment, then he is challenging the conditions rather than the fact of his confinement and his remedy is under civil rights law....” Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir.1991). Even though nothing in IIRIRA precludes jurisdiction in this Court over claims challenging the conditions of confinement, Ka-mara’s challenges to the adequacy of his medical treatment do not concern the fact, duration or degree of his confinement, but rather the conditions of his confinement. His claims of inadequate medical treatment, “substantial” though they may be, thus do not form the basis of a habeas corpus action. See Ramallo v. Reno, 114 F.3d 1210, 1214 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). That Kamara’s petition seeks the relief of a

A: holding that district courts retain jurisdiction after iirira to decide habeas corpus challenges involving pure questions of law
B: holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available
C: recognizing that after iirira habeas review remains available  to raise substantial constitutional questions
D: holding that statelaw admissibility questions raise no federal habeas issues
C.