With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". action by Congress,’ no explicit statutory prohibition against the relief sought, and no exclusive statutory alternative remedy.” Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 421, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (quoting Davis, 442 U.S. at 245, 99 S.Ct. 2264). We must therefore review the immigration statutes to determine whether a Bivens class action is available in cases like the one at bar. Section 1252 indicates a legislative intent to limit review of immigration decisions in federal district courts. Prior to the enactment of IIRIRA, judicial review of immigration decisions, including final orders, could occur either in a federal circuit court of appeals or in a federal district court. See Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 210, 215-16, 88 S.Ct. 1970, 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Castaneda v. INS, 23 F.3d 1576, 1579-80 (10th

A: holding that the procedural aspects of iirira  309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date
B: holding that language found in 8 usc  1105aa 1961 giving circuit courts of appeal exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders was expressly limited to orders made in the course of deportation proceedings or to direct challenges of the deportation order itself and stating that in all other cases an aliens remedies would lie first in an action brought in an appropriate district court
C: holding that because the nga vests exclusive jurisdiction to review all decisions of the commission in the circuit court of appeals there is no area of review whether relating to final or preliminary orders available in the district court internal citations omitted
D: holding that withdrawal of judicial review over final orders of deportation also withdraws jurisdiction from motions to reconsider or reopen
B.