Kamara v. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2063873 (3d Cir. August 29, 2005) (petition for review jurisdiction exists, after REAL ID Act, to review pure questions of law, and applications of law to fact where the facts are undisputed and not the subject of challenge).      Thus, examining each of Kamara's present claims, we are limited to "pure questions of law," St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 305, and to "issues of application of law to fact, where the facts are undisputed and not the subject of challenge." Bakhtriger, 360 F .3d at 420 (citing Ogbudimkpa, 342 F.3d at 222). We review the BIA's legal decisions de novo, Wang v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 347, 349 (3d Cir.2004), but will afford Chevron deference to the BIA's reasonable interpretations of statutes which it is charged with administering. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984).