With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". al., No. 05-3662-ag In this case, amicus counsel correctly argues that, prior to the enactment of the REAL ID Act, a Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review an order of removal where, as is the case here, that order was entered against an alien by reason of his conviction for an aggravated felony where the convicted alien did not challenge that categorization of his crime. See INA § 242(a)(2)(c) (as amended by Pub.L. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996)). Accordingly, prior to May 11, 2005, the date of the enactment of the REAL ID Act, Williamson had no reason to file a petition for review. However, Williamson failed to file his § 2241 petition within 30 days of the enactment of the REAL ID Act and therefore cannot benefit from the grace period we have allowed. Wang, 484 F.3d at 616, 617-18 (<HOLDING>). As such, we conclude that we have no

A: holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons
B: holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law
C: holding that because the real id act created a remedy as broad in scope as a habeas petition the act is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
D: holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction
D.