On petition for rehearing, defendants urge us to modify the holding of Jean-Baptiste v. Reno, 144 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 1998), insofar as it recognized the availability of habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for criminal aliens barred from direct appellate review by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) & (g). Although that holding has since been criticized by another panel of this Court, see Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 119 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom. Navas v. Reno, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1141, 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999), a number of other circuits recognize the availability of some habeas review under § 1252(g) and similar provisions of the new immigration statutes, see Ramallo v. Reno, 114 F.3d 1210, 1214 (D.C.Cir. 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1139, 143 L.Ed.2d 207 (1999); Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 123-25 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 119 S.Ct. 1140, 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999); Sandoval v. Reno, 166 F.3d 225, 238 (3d Cir. 1999); Lerma de Garcia v. INS, 141 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 1998) (IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G)); Mansour v. INS, 123 F.3d 423, 426 (6th Cir. 1997) (AEDPA § 440(a)). Regardless of whether these courts agree as to the precise scope of the habeas review that remains, such scope is a question we expressly left unanswered in Jean-Baptiste, 144 F.3d at 220. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is denied.